A comparison between qualitative and quantitative histories: the example of the efficient market hypothesis
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
This paper uses the example of the history of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) and citation analysis in order to investigate some differences between qualitative history and a quantitative history. The history of the EMH provides a telling example of the way quantitative analyses can supply different perspectives on the qualitative history of this hypothesis or complement it. For instance, since the EMH was proposed, several criticisms emerged. In addition, the definition and the scope of this hypothesis have been modified several times. Although the qualitative history of the EMH refers to these criticisms and these alternative definitions and scopes, qualitative tools cannot provide a clear measure of the impact of these criticisms and these modifications among economists. By studying the dissemination of the EMH, its major criticisms, and the answers economists provided, citation analysis sheds a different light on the history of the EMH.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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