MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2709336126 · doi:10.3103/s1066530717040020

Statistical foundations for assessing the difference between the classical and weighted-Gini betas

2017· preprint· en· W2709336126 on OpenAlexaff
Nadezhda Gribkova, Ričardas Zitikis

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Methods of Statistics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital asset pricing modelEconometricsEconomicsStatistical inferenceBETA (programming language)InferenceActuarial scienceMathematicsStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘beta’ is one of the key quantities in the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). In statistical language, the beta can be viewed as the slope of the regression line fitted to financial returns on the market against the returns on the asset under consideration. The insurance counterpart of CAPM, called the weighted insurance pricing model (WIPM), gives rise to the so-called weighted-Gini beta. The aforementioned two betas may or may not coincide, depending on the form of the underlying regression function, and this has profound implications when designing portfolios and allocating risk capital. To facilitate these tasks, in this paper we develop large-sample statistical inference results that, in a straightforward fashion, imply confidence intervals for, and hypothesis tests about, the equality of the two betas.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.169
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.169
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Methods of StatisticsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207