Investors’ Behavioural Biases and the Security Market: An Empirical Study of the Nigerian Security Market
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioural biases describe a replicable pattern in perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality. This paper adopts a primary data approach to investigate the effects of behavioural biases on security market performance in Nigeria. The objectives are in twofold: one, to examine the extent of behavioural biases among security market investors in Nigeria and, to examine the effects of behavioural biases on stock market performance in Nigeria. The paper employed questionnaire as instrument and the technique of correlation with Pearson Product Moment Coefficient to analyze a survey of 300 randomly selected investors in Nigeria security market. We find strong evidence that behavioural biases exists but not so dominant in the Nigeria security market because a weak negative relationship exists between behavioural biases and stock market performance in Nigeria. The paper recommends that individual investors in the market should engage the services of investment advisors which will reduce personal biases in the management of their portfolios.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it