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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging equity markets have attracted foreign investor by their higher returns and prospect of \nsuperior risk diversification benefits. In light of increasing flow of equity portfolio investments \ninto these economies and their subsequent integration with equity markets of developed world, \nstudies have not only shown concern over the reduction in the long term risk diversification \nbenefits, but also there may be less of increase in the original price of securities. Local economy \ninitiates formal financial liberalisation measures to integrate with world capital markets. \nHowever, removal of regulatory restrictions may not attract foreign investments in the presence \nof other indirect barriers and emerging markets specific risks. Also, the process of financial \nliberalisation is time varying and not one off event. This creates difficulty in pin pointing the \nexact date of liberalisation. These complexities cause difficulties in the development of dynamic \nmodels for pricing securities in emerging markets and measuring the impact of integration. \nHowever, with the removal of direct and indirect barriers to foreign investments, these markets \nare showing greater integration with world markets. With increasing integration emerging \nmarkets are becoming more susceptible to global risk factors. Higher degree of integration \nshould reduce cost of equity capital (expected return) and increase the correlation of returns with \ndeveloped markets. However, empirical works report the reduction in cost of capital to be lower \nthan predicted by asset pricing models. It is also challenging to measure the degree of market \nintegration because of the constant structural changes observed in emerging markets. Countries \nhave even been found to exhibit segmentation over time. Hence, in the context of asset pricing \nmodels the findings on the degree of integration are inconclusive and conflicting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it