MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119514397

The Rate of Risk Aversion May Be Lower Than You Think

2002· preprint· en· W2119514397 on OpenAlexaff
Kris Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2002
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk aversion (psychology)Euler equationsEquity premium puzzleEconomicsCapital asset pricing modelEconometricsConsumption (sociology)Asset (computer security)Risk premiumMathematicsWelfare economicsHumanitiesMathematical economicsExpected utility hypothesisPhilosophyComputer scienceMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A l'aide de données sur la consommation des ménages et d'équations d'Euler, cet article estime le taux d'aversion au risque relatif. Ces équations d'Euler sont les implications de structures de marché qui ne permettent pas toujours aux agents de s'assurer parfaitement. Cet article porte plus particulièrement sur des tests de l'équation d'Euler inconditionnelle. Dans le cadre d'un agent représentatif, ce type de test mène aux rejets les plus intuitivement convaincants des modèles d'évaluation d'actifs, comme l'énigme de la prime de risque et l'énigme du taux sans risque. Lorsque l'on ignore les erreurs de mesure de la consommation, les erreurs de l'équation d'Euler ne sont pas statistiquement différents de zéro pour les valeurs du taux d'aversion au risque relatif comprises entre 1 et 3. Lorsque l'on tient compte de la présence des erreurs de mesure, les estimations conservatrices du taux d'aversion au risque relatif pour les participants à un marché d'actifs indiquent une valeur entre 2 et 8. Ces résultats suggèrent que le taux d'aversion au risque pourrait être plus bas que ce qui est couramment perçu. Par conséquent, l'imperfection des marchés pourrait servir à résoudre les énigmes d'évaluation d'actifs.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)Same topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207