MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120959176 · doi:10.47782/oeba202008055601

Die Finanzmärkte im ersten Halbjahr 2020

2020· article· de· W3120959176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monika Rosen-Philipp

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für das gesamte Bank- und Börsenwesen · 2020
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)BondIndex (typography)Order (exchange)Financial crisisInflation (cosmology)Interest rateFinancial systemBusinessEconomicsFinanceGeographyKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The year 2020 will certainly be one to remember. The Corona crisis affected all areas of life, not least the financial markets. Equities suffered a rapid decline in the spring, but subsequently managed to regain a lot of ground. Tech stocks in particular gave a strong showing, the NASDAQ even hit a new record high on July 1. Still the MSCI World Index suffered a decline of almost 9% during the first half. Between February 20 and March 23, the index lost 35% of its value. In order to combat the crisis, governments and central banks worldwide pumped 18 trillion dollars into the system. Virtually all industrialized countries have cut their interest rates to 0, and massive bond buying programs by central banks resulted in corporate bonds posting an 8% return during the second quarter. Investors seem convinced that inflation will not be a problem and that rates will remain at zero for a long time to come. Unsurprisingly, gold was one of the winners of the crisis. It ended the second quarter at prices around 1.800 dollars, the highest level since September 2011.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.033

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für das gesamte Bank- und BörsenwesenSame topicEuropean Monetary and Fiscal PoliciesFrench-language works237,207