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 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.205
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