MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123039372

Dimension Reduction and Model Averaging for Estimation of Artists' Age-Valuation Profiles

2009· preprint· en· W3123039372 on OpenAlexafffund
John W. Galbraith, Douglas J. Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsValuation (finance)Regression analysisRegressionEconometricsVariablesHedonic regressionSample (material)MathematicsPaintingVariable (mathematics)StatisticsLinear regressionEconomicsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans des modèles de régression hédonique de l'évaluation des oeuvres d'art, on trouve souvent que la valeur explicative de l'âge de l'artiste lors de la création d'une oeuvre (ou d'une variable indicatrice des périodes de sa carrière) est très significative. La plupart des études préalables estiment des modèles où sont mis ensemble plusieurs artistes. Bien qu'il soit intéressant d'estimer de tels modèles pour des artistes individuels, les échantillons disponibles sont d'habitude de taille insuffisante en considérant le grand nombre de toutes les autres variables explicatives qu'on voudrait aussi inclure dans la régression. Dans ce papier, on adresse ce problème de degrés de liberté insuffisants en se servant de deux méthodes statistiques (moyenne de modèles et réduction de dimension) afin d'incorporer de l'information contenue dans un nombre possiblement grand de variables explicatives nous permettant l'estimation avec un petit échantillon. On trouve que les profils « âge-prix » des peintres individuels sont souvent considérablement différents de ceux estimés pour un groupe de peintres rassemblés, suggérant que l'application de nos méthodes dans des régressions hédoniques pourrait fournir de meilleures prévisions de prix réalisés dans des ventes aux enchères.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207