MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136322157 · doi:10.1215/00182702-2334758

The Emergence of Econophysics: A New Approach in Modern Financial Theory

2013· article· en· W2136322157 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Political Economy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconophysicsEconomicsNeoclassical economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial economics and mathematical finance are the two traditional scientific disciplines that constitute modern financial theory. Although they still largely dominate modern financial theory, in the past few years a new “player” has increasingly been making itself felt and could lead to a rethinking of some of the theoretical foundations of modern financial theory. This new player is econophysics. Econophysics is a very recent movement that is beginning to interest increasing numbers of financial practitioners. To date, no history of econophysics has been produced. This article aims at filling this gap. It analyzes the theoretical foundations of econophysics and their connections with the history of financial economics. It also explores the reasons underlying the emergence of econophysics and explains how econophysics has become the third component of modern financial theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.164 · 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