MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3124382168 · doi:10.20955/wp.2012.001

Optimal Disclosure Policy and Undue Diligence

2012· report· en· W3124382168 on OpenAlexafffund
David Andolfatto, Aleksander Berentsen, Christopher J. Waller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUndue influenceDue diligenceDiligenceBusinessLaw and economicsLawEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While both public and private financial agencies supply asset markets with large amounts of information, they do not generally disclose all assetrelated information to the general public.Thisobserv ationleadsustoask what principles might govern the optimal disclosure policy for an asset manager or financial regulator.To investigate this question, we study the properties of a dynamic economy endowed with a risky asset, and with individuals that lack commitment.Information relating to future asset returns is available to society at zero cost.Legislation dictates whether this information is to be made public or not.Given the properties of our environment, nondisclosure is generally desirable.This result is overturned, however, when individuals are able to access hidden information-what we call undue diligence-at sufficiently low cost.Information disclosure is desirable, in other words, only to the extent that individuals can easily discover it for themselves.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEconomic theories and models→French-language works237,207→