MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081037911 · doi:10.1002/ijfe.344

Estimation of the consumption CAPM with imperfect sample separation information

2007· article· en· W2081037911 on OpenAlexaff
Andrei Semenov

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Finance & Economics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital asset pricing modelEconomicsEconometricsImperfectConsumption (sociology)Stochastic discount factorSample (material)Asset (computer security)Risk aversion (psychology)Mutual fund separation theoremConsumption-based capital asset pricing modelEquity premium puzzleSeparation (statistics)Capital assetStatisticsFinancial economicsMathematicsExpected utility hypothesisComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a consumption‐based capital asset pricing model consumption (CAPM), in which the pricing kernel is calculated as the average of individuals' intertemporal marginal rates of substitution weighted by the probabilities of holding the asset in question. These probabilities are conditional on available imperfect sample separation information and are estimated simultaneously with the parameters of Euler equations. Using data from the US Consumer Expenditure Survey, we find that the consumption CAPM with probability‐weighted agents yields a more precise estimate of the agent's risk aversion compared with the model, in which the available imperfect information on asset‐holding status is erroneously regarded as a perfect sample separation indicator. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Finance & EconomicsSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207