MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068691325 · doi:10.1002/fut.20441

Performance and persistence of Commodity Trading Advisors: Further evidence

2009· article· en· W2068691325 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)Explanatory powerCommodityEconomicsEconometricsAsset (computer security)QuartileFinancial economicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We re‐examine the performance of Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) over the January 1995 to October 2008 period. We compare abnormal performance based on a number of alternative existing models, as well as a category‐specific model introducing asset‐, option‐, and moments‐based factors. Taking more factors into account significantly raises the explanatory power, and 9 out of 12 CTA categories significantly outperform the market. We find that numerous CTAs show persistence over a horizon of at least three months and they are also more likely to be persistent over a longer period. Yet, most of the persistence fades away upon the “acid test” of considering only the top and bottom quartiles of CTAs. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 30:725–752, 2010

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)0.001
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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.192 · 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