MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094150389 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v12n11p83

Cause Determination of the Adjustable-Rate Mortgage Market Collapse During the Financial Crisis

2020· article· en· W3094150389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefaultForeclosureFinancial crisisEconomicsFinancial systemNarrativeMonetary economicsFinanceKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides insight into what caused the decline of the adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) market during the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Contrary to common perception, the failure of the ARM market cannot be primarily attributed to predatory lending targeting subprime borrowers from low-credit households. This popular narrative is incomplete and disregards some important factors. I present three key factors that challenge the narrative and point to previously undiscussed sources that may have contributed to the ARM market collapse. First, the accusation of predatory lending does not account for other possible causes of mass ARM defaults. Second, the sole focus on the market’s subprime segment disregards the impact of prime ARMs on the market. Third, the narrative’s citation of subprime ARMs having greater delinquency rates and foreclosure numbers fails to recognize the significant percentage increase in prime ARM failures in the years leading up to the crisis, as well the disparity in typical outstanding balances between subprime and prime ARMs.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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