MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023809336 · doi:10.1504/ijbaf.2014.061440

Comovement and FTSE 100 index changes

2014· article· en· W3023809336 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerry Coakley, Periklis Kougoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioural Accounting and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnivariateBivariate analysisIndex (typography)EconometricsEconomicsComplement (music)Financial economicsStatisticsMultivariate statisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We employ the Barberis et al. (2005) methodology to investigate the impact of changes to the FTSE 100 index on return comovement 1992–2002. For FTSE entries, the average weekly increase in the beta coefficient is 0.38 in univariate regressions and 0.60 in bivariate regressions that control for the return on non-FTSE stocks. Stocks deleted from the index display the opposite pattern post exit. The results are robust to a number of factors including size, industry and non-trading effects. They are difficult to explain within a classical framework but complement those found for the USA, Japan and Canada in supporting behavioural finance views of comovement.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioural Accounting and FinanceSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207