MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040867922 · doi:10.25397/eur.8152748

Historical Data: International monthly government bond returns

2023· article· en· W3040867922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurens Swinkels

Bibliographic record

VenueRePub (Erasmus University, Rotterdam) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryBondYield (engineering)Government bondMaturity (psychological)EconomicsFinancial economicsActuarial scienceBusinessEconometricsFinanceMonetary economicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academics and research analysts in financial economics frequently use returns on government bonds for their empirical analyses. In the United States, government bonds are also called Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve publishes the yield-to-maturity of Treasury bonds. However, the Treasury bond returns earned by investors are not publicly available. The purpose of this study is to provide these currently not publicly available return series and provide formulas such that these series can easily be updated by researchers. We use standard textbook formulas to convert the yield-to-maturity data to investor returns. The starting date of our series is January 1962, when end-of-month data on the yield-to-maturity become publicly available. We compare our newly created total return series with alternative series that can be purchased. Our return series are very close, suggesting that they are a high-quality public alternative to commercially available data. This data set calculates monthly returns for: United States (starting 1947) Germany (starting 1972) Japan (starting 1974) Australia (starting 1969) France (starting 1987) Canada (starting 1986) UK (starting 1970) Norway (starting 1921) Sweden (starting 1920) Data updated unitl December 2022.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.022

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePub (Erasmus University, Rotterdam)Same topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207