MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125324244 · doi:10.26509/frbc-wp-200119

A Strategic Approach to Hedging and Contracting

2001· preprint· en· W3125324244 on OpenAlex
David Leonard Downie, Ed Nosal

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorking paper · 2001
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Bank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHedgeProfitability indexBusinessCash flowProduct (mathematics)Market powerCashMicroeconomicsSet (abstract data type)EconomicsFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a new rationale for hedging that is based, in part, on noncompetitive behavior in product markets. We identify a set of conditions which imply that a firm may want to hedge. Empirically, these conditions are not inconsistent with what is observed in the market place. The conditions are: (i) firms have some market power in their product market, (ii) firms have limited liability, and (iii) firms can contract to sell their output at a specified price before all factors which can affect their profitability are known. For some parameter specifications, however, our model predicts that firms will not want to hedge. This result is important because although a large fraction of firms do hedge their cash flows, a substantial number of firms do not.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.176 · 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