MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279140398 · doi:10.1002/fut.21899

Open outcry versus electronic trading: Tests of market efficiency on crude palm oil futures

2018· article· en· W2279140398 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Snaith, Neil Kellard, Norzalina Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Futures Markets · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsFutures contractVolatility (finance)EconomicsOpen outcryPrice discoveryFutures marketAlgorithmic tradingCrude oilPalm oilMarket efficiencyFinancial economicsMonetary economicsSkewElectronic tradingEconometricsAlternative trading systemFinanceAgricultural science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the widespread transfer of trading to electronic platforms we ask whether such trading is more efficient than open outcry. Examining the Crude Palm Oil (CPO) market from 1995:06 to 2008:07, our findings, derived from a novel threshold autoregressive relative efficiency measure, are that efficiency is conditional on: (i) volatility; (ii) the maturity of the futures contract; and (iii) the market trading system. Specifically, when volatility is high, open outcry is superior for shorter maturities and electronic trading for longer maturities. These results suggest an efficiency skew and that there may be benefits to the coexistence of trading mechanisms.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Futures MarketsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207