MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599231942 · doi:10.1111/jofi.12548

Nonfundamental Speculation Revisited

2017· article· en· W2599231942 on OpenAlexaff
Liyan Yang, Haoxiang Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeculationMathematical economicsOrder (exchange)Characterization (materials science)MathematicsApplied mathematicsPhysicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We show that a linear pure strategy equilibrium may not exist in the model of Madrigal (1996), contrary to the claim of the original paper. This is because Madrigal's characterization of a pure strategy equilibrium omits a second‐order condition. If the nonfundamental speculator's information about noise trading is sufficiently precise, a linear pure strategy equilibrium fails to exist. In parameter regions where a pure strategy equilibrium does exist, we identify a few calculation errors in Madrigal (1996) that result in misleading implications.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of FinanceSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207