MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2094124299 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v6n4p276

Impact of Transaction for Institutional and Non-Institutional Persons for Rising Magnet Effect on Price Limit at Tehran Stock Exchange

2014· article· en· W2094124299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mir Feiz Fallah Shams, M Mohammadi, Hamidreza Kordlouie, Hamid Mahdavirad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock exchangeStock (firearms)BusinessInstitutional investorMonetary economicsStock priceDatabase transactionStock marketMagnetEconomicsFinancePhysicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At many stock exchanges of world, it is applied from price limit for different purposes including: reducing frequency and manipulation of stock. One of the most important effects of price limit is magnet effect that is available in most of stock exchanges of world. The magnet effect on Tehran stock exchange is proved and in this article we decide to study this effect on Tehran stock exchange and role of active investors at stock market. Studies on 24 companies as case study including: Kesaveh, Ghalrest, Shomal Excavation, Betras, Khazamia, Khasapa, Sefars, Sina, Fazer, Fasmin, Ghapira, Ghanisha, Kermasha, Koravi, Vitro, Sapa, Sakht, Sepah, Sandogh, Lesapa, Melat and Madan reveal that except one case (Gheshkar) in all of the companies the role of institutional investors on magnet effect is higher than non-institutional investors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→