MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining Technology Enactment in the Fixed Income Market

2011· article· en· W2918242154 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Information Systems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPerceptionFixed incomeMarketingEmpirical researchEmpirical evidenceSurvey data collectionFace (sociological concept)FinanceBond

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the use of electronic trading systems (ETS) in fixed income (FI) market is becoming more common in the last few years, only a small number of empirical studies have been conducted to examine their adoption and impact in the market. In this study, we use the technology enactment framework (TEF) to identify various institutional and organizational factors that influence ETS adoption. Based on a comprehensive survey and face-to- face interviews with senior managers, sales representatives, and traders from major Canadian financial institutions, we find that the FI market is characterized by a high level of embedded relationships and that the ETS users do not entirely trust their ETS. This study also presents, among others, important findings regarding the impact of ETS on the users' job performance and their perception about the asymmetric nature of benefits provided by ETS in the FI market.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.154 · 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