MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085327089 · doi:10.1108/jdqs-01-2005-b0004

An Empirical Analysis on Trading strategy of KTB and KTF Using the Two Factors CIR Term Structure Model

2005· article· en· W3085327089 on OpenAlexaff
Tong Suk Kim, Yun Keun Lee, Jung‐Soon Hyun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Derivatives and Quantitative Studies 선물연구 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryTerm (time)EconometricsFutures contractProfit (economics)EconomicsFinancial economicsPhysicsGeographyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term structure of KTB (Korea Treasury Bond) is empirically implemented and forecasted by the extended 2-factor CIR model. Pearson and Sun model. MLE is applied to estimate parameters. Using KTB prices forecasted by the model, strategies of trading and hedge between KTB, KTF (Korea Treasury Futures) are established. In this article we can see that Pearson and Sun model appropriately explains the term structure of KTB but does not fit forecasting KTB prices. However, the model well forecasts the direction of interest rate moving up or down. Through such a forecast‘ profit via trading KTB and KTF can be realized.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.130 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Derivatives and Quantitative Studies 선물연구Same topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207