MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323864563 · doi:10.1021/cen-v080n015.p019

STOCKS RECOVER LATE IN QUARTER

2002· article· en· W2323864563 on OpenAlex
WILLIAM J. STORCK, ANN THAYER

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical & Engineering News · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Environmental scienceBusinessEconomicsGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THE STOCK MARKET RECOVERED, although with a few jitters, in the first quarter. The Dow Jones industrial average stayed flat in january, then rose in February, and remained fairly steady in March, ending the quarter up 3.8% compared with the end of 2001. However, the technology-heavy NASDAQ market didn't do as well, falling in January and February. Although it recovered some in March, the NASDAQ ended the quarter down 5.4%. There was more life in chemical stocks than in the market as a whole. C&EN's index of the share prices of 25 chemical companies rose 9.4% to 169 (1992 = 100) at the end of the quarter. Most growth came in March when investors decided there may still be value in old-line industries. Perhaps more important, the chemical index finally recovered from months of lackluster performance caused by terrorist attacks, fears of economic contraction, worries about uninspired markets, and declining earnings. On the next to the last ...

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 score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.157 · 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