MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064460362 · doi:10.1002/fut.20167

Survival of commodity trading advisors: 1990–2003

2005· article· en· W2064460362 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Futures Markets · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsCommodityParametric statisticsEconomicsSample (material)EconometricsActuarial scienceFinancial economicsStatisticsFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article investigates the mortality of Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) over the 1990–2003 period, a longer horizon than any encompassed in the literature. A detailed survival analysis over the full range of CTA classifications is provided, and it is found that the median lifetime of CTAs in this sample is different than previously documented. Through the implementation of nonparametric, parametric, and semiparametric statistical techniques, it is emphasized that CTA survivorship is heavily contingent on the strategy followed by the fund. Furthermore, a significant positive size effect on survival is shown, whereas poor returns, and to a lesser extent, high‐risk exposure, appear to hasten mortality. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 25:795–815, 2005

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it