Testing Weak-Form Market Efficiency On The TSX
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
<p>This study tests the validity of the weak-form EMH on the Canadian TSX equity market using seven TSX daily index returns. Quantitatively, a variety of statistical tests is used to test for the randomness of return series. Results of the common statistical (i.e., the autocorrelation, the BG, the runs) tests all suggest that returns are serially correlated, except returns on the TSX 60 capped index. After rejecting the RWM of TSX indices using univariate unit root (i.e., ADF, PP, KPSS), we proceed to test for the possibility of nonlinear dynamic patterns present in return series. BDS results reject an IID underlying residual series after fitting AR(2) to TSX daily index returns, indicating that a deterministic chaotic process describes the data well. This finding of a temporal dependency is supported also by results of the R/S analysis, which indicates that all TSX index returns possess long-memory properties of an anti-persistent trend-reversing behaviour with two indices showing stronger degree of anti-correlation and five indices showing weaker degree of anti-correlation. Overall, results uniformly reject the RWM governing TSX equity index returns, implying that the Canadian equity market is weak-form inefficient.</p>
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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