MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521485450 · doi:10.1021/cen-v080n028.p017

STOCKS FALL IN SECOND QUARTER

2002· article· en· W2521485450 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.

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
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EngineeringHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CORPORATE SCANDALS, GLOBAL unrest, lack of confidence in the economy, a poor earnings outlook, threats of terrorist attacks—some of the reasons given for the lackluster performance of U.S. stock markets in the second quarter—had the same effect on performance as a chicken running across the floor of the New York Stock Exchange shouting, "The sky is falling!" Chemical, pharmaceutical, and biopharmaceutical stocks were not immune to these fears, although, overall, chemical stocks were affected much less than drug stocks. During the second quarter, C&EN's index of 25 chemical company stocks slipped just 5% from its first-quarter close to finish at 161 (1992 = 100). During the same period, C&EN's drug stock index fell 22.1% and its biopharmaceutical index dropped 33.4%. The chemical stock index, because of a fairly good first quarter, managed to achieve a 4.2% gain between the last trading day of 2001 and the end of June, outperforming the Dow Jones industrial ...

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.162
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