MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082989496 · doi:10.1002/fut.10053

Does tick size influence price discovery? Evidence from the Toronto Stock Exchange

2002· article· en· W2082989496 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Futures Markets · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTick sizePrice discoveryEconomicsFinancial economicsIndex (typography)Futures contractStock exchangeStock index futuresFutures marketStock market indexIndex fundMonetary economicsEconometricsStock marketOpen-end fundInstitutional investorFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the price discovery role of an exchange‐traded fund and the futures contract for the same market index. We find that the fund predicts the index in the subperiod after but not in the subperiod before a substantial decrease in the minimum tick size. The futures predict the index in both subperiods. The results are consistent with the view that the factors leading to successful price discovery do not depend on zero investment, as in futures markets, but do depend on a small tick size. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 23:49–66, 2003

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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