Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the efficiency of cross hedging with single stock futures (SSF) contracts. We propose a new technique for hedging exposure to an individual stock that does not have options or exchange-traded SSF contracts written on it. Our method selects as a hedging instrument a portfolio of SSF contracts which are selected based on how closely matched their underlying firm characteristics are with the characteristics of the individual stock we are attempting to hedge. We investigate whether using cross-sectional characteristics to construct our hedge can provide hedging efficiency gains over that of constructing the hedge based on retum correlations alone. Overall, we find that the best hedging performance is achieved through a portfolio that is hedged with market index futures and a SSF matched by both historical return correlation and cross-sectional matching characteristics. We also find it preferable to retain the chosen SSF contracts for the whole out-of-sample period while re-estimating the optimal hedge ratio at each rolling window.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it