MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118092143 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2014.3.019

An application of unit rate estimation on shareholders’ overreaction: Evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange

2014· article· en· W2118092143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard, Amin Shakourloo

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderStock exchangeEstimationBusinessStock (firearms)Monetary economicsExchange rateEconometricsEconomicsFinanceCorporate governanceManagementMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper characterizes the stockholders overreaction thorough return and price mean reverting behavior in specified ten major industry groups in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).For investigation of mean reversion presence, we use corporate firms from ten specified industry groups traded on the Tehran Stock Exchange and using a random walk with drift model with data over the period 2009-2013 period and recursive estimation in stability diagnostics test.The primary objective of this paper is to investigate mean reversion phenomenon in ten major industries including maximum number of real and nonstrategic investors with two different methods on quarterly return and monthly price time series.The results indicate that mean reversion occurred in the returns of these industry group.In addition, we use two major Unit Root Tests as complementary and final analysis.Out results also indicate that mean reversion takes place, significantly in eight industry groups and price time series in two industry groups follow a random walk process.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207