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
This paper presents the multifractal model of asset returns (“MMAR”), based upon the pioneering research into multifractal measures by Mandelbrot (1972, 1974). The multifractal model incorporates two elements of Mandelbrot’s past research that are now well-known in finance. First, the MMAR contains long-tails, as in Mandelbrot (1963), which focused on Lévy-stable distributions. In contrast to Mandelbrot (1963), this model does not necessarily imply infinite variance. Second, the model contains long-dependence, the characteristic feature of fractional Brownian Motion (FBM), in-troduced by Mandelbrot and van Ness (1968). In contrast to FBM, the multifractal model displays long dependence in the absolute value of price increments, while price increments themselves can be uncorrelated. As such, the MMAR is an alternative to ARCH-type representations that have been the focus of empirical research on the distri-bution of prices for the past fifteen years. The distinguishing feature of the multifractal model is multiscaling of the return distribution’s moments under time-rescalings. We define multiscaling, show how to generate processes with this property, and discuss how these processes differ from the standard processes of continuous-time finance. The multifractal model implies certain empirical regularities, which are investigated in a companion paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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