MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166900235 · doi:10.1017/s1053837213000205

ECONOPHYSICS: A NEW CHALLENGE FOR FINANCIAL ECONOMICS?

2013· article· en· W2166900235 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

VenueJournal of the History of Economic Thought · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconophysicsMainstreamMainstream economicsEconomicsField (mathematics)Neoclassical economicsFinancial econometricsFinanceFinancial economicsPositive economicsFinancial marketApplied economicsPolitical scienceMathematicsLawIndirect finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial economics was born in the 1960s. It took less than two decades for the new discipline’s main theoretical results to become established, creating what is considered to be mainstream financial economics. Less than thirty years later, a new field of research called “econophysics” was created. This field aims to reinvent modern financial theory and, indirectly, financial economics. This article proposes to study, by an historical analysis, to what extent econophysics today could constitute one of the major theoretical challenges to financial economics. It shows how these two fields have historical similarities, and analyzes how these similarities call the future evolution of financial theory into question.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.158 · 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