2010-03: Australian Art Market Prices during the Global Financial Crisis and two earlier decades (Working paper)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study constructs a quarterly hedonic price index using 64,203 artworks, by seventyone\nwell-known modern and contemporary Australian artists, sold at auction houses over the period 1986-2009. The hedonic regression model includes characteristics such as name and living status of the artist, the size and medium of the painting, and the auction house, quarter and year in which the painting was sold. The resulting index indicates that returns on Australian fine-art averaged one percent in nominal terms over the period from quarter one 1986 to quarter four 2009 with a standard deviation of seventeen percent. During the global financial crisis spanning quarter one 2008 and quarter four 2009, the average art returns declined in nominal terms by close to six percent with a standard deviation of twenty-one percent. This study also shows that over the entire period the art market only marginally underperformed the stock and housing markets. The low correlations between these markets suggest the benefits of portfolio diversification.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".