MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125328688

The Effect of Air Pollution on Investor Behavior: Evidence from the S&P 500

2016· article· en· W3125328688 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Heyes, Matthew Neidell, Soodeh Saberian

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownloadRobustness (evolution)Empirical evidenceDeveloping countryEconometricsMonetary economicsInfluencer marketingParticulatesAir pollutionStock (firearms)EconomicsBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringMarketingBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide detailed empirical evidence of a direct effect of air pollution on the efficient operation of the New York Stock Exchange, linking short-term variations in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in Manhattan to movements in the S&P 500. The effects are substantial – a one standard deviation increases in ambient PM2.5 reduces same-day returns by 11.9% in our preferred specification – and remarkably robust to a variety of specifications and a battery of robustness and falsification checks. Furthermore, the intra-day effects that we observe are difficult to reconcile with competing hypotheses. Despite investors being dispersed geographically we find strong evidence that the effect is strictly local in nature, consistent with the high concentration of market influencers in New York. While we are agnostic as to the underlying mechanism, we provide evidence suggestive of the role of decreased risk tolerance operating through pollution-induced changes in mood or cognitive function.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207