<scp>A</scp>ustralian Art Market Prices During the Global Financial Crisis and Two Earlier Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study constructs a quarterly hedonic price index using 64,203 artworks, by seventy‐one well‐known modern and contemporaryAustralian artists, sold at auction houses over the period 1986–2009. The hedonic regression model includes characteristics such as name and living status of the artist, the size and medium of the painting, and the auction house, quarter and year in which the painting was sold. The resulting index indicates that returns onAustralian fine‐art averaged one per cent in nominal terms over the period from quarter 1 1986 to quarter 4 2009 with a standard deviation of seventeen per cent. During the global financial crisis spanning quarter 1 2008 and quarter 4 2009, the average art returns declined in nominal terms by close to six per cent with a standard deviation of twenty‐one per cent. This study also shows that over the entire period the art market only marginally underperformed the stock and housing markets. The low correlations between these markets suggest the benefits of portfolio diversification.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".