Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the arbitrage profitability of the KOSPI200 futures spread, using intraday data during 10 days prior to the expiration day of each contract for the 9/3/2001 ∼ 6/912005 period. The theoretical frameworks for arbitrage strategies were developed for the analysis. Our results show that 97.36% of the total 8.633 observations were fairly priced. 1.46% (126 observations) were underpriced, and 1.18% (102 observations) were overpriced, in the ex post arbitrage profitability analysis between the futures spread and the calendar spread. Also, in the arbitrage profitability analysis based on the mispricing of the KOSPI200 futures spread against the theoretical price. 90.39% of the total 10.054 observations were fairly priced and 9.61 % (966 observations) were underpriced. There was no overpriced observation. The ajority of those underpriced observations were concentrated in the 3rd Quarter of 2001 and the 1st quarter of 2003. Overall, there were very few arbitrage opportunities except for the introductory period and some contracts with high uncertainty, implying that the KOSPI200 futures spread market has been generally efficient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".