MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cross-correlations and predictability of stock returns

2001· article· en· W2083119721 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 Forecasting · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityEconometricsStock (firearms)EconomicsFinancial economicsMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have shown that small stock returns can be partially predicted by the past returns of large stocks (cross-correlations), while a larger body of literature has shown that macroeconomic variables can predict future stock returns. This paper assesses the marginal contribution of cross-correlations after controlling for predictability inherent in lagged macroeconomic variables. Macroeconomic forecasting models generate trading rule profits of up to 0.431% per month, while the inclusion of cross-correlations increases returns to 0.516% per month. Such results suggest that cross-correlations may serve as a proxy for omitted macroeconomic variables in studies of stock market predictability. Macroeconomic variables are more important than cross-correlations in forecasting small stock returns and encompassing tests suggest that the small marginal contribution of cross-correlations is not statistically significant. Copyright © 2001 by 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.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.182 · 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