MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<scp>W</scp> ilkie Investment Model

2014· other· en· W3173096068 on OpenAlexaff
Mary R. Hardy

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBondInflation (cosmology)Exposition (narrative)EconomicsContext (archaeology)Investment (military)Equity (law)EconometricsFinancial modelingWageComputer scienceFinancial economicsFinanceHistoryArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Wilkie stochastic investment model, developed by Professor Wilkie, is described fully in two papers; the original version was published in 1986 and the model was reviewed, updated, and extended in 1995. In addition, the latter paper includes much detail on the process of fitting the model and estimating the parameters. It is an excellent exposition, both comprehensive and readable. It is highly recommended for any reader who wishes to implement the Wilkie model for themselves, or to develop and fit their own model. The Wilkie model is commonly used to simulate the joint distribution of inflation rates, bond yields, and returns on equities. The 1995 paper also extends the model to incorporate wage inflation, property yields, and exchange rates. The model has proved to be an invaluable tool for actuaries, particularly in the context of measuring and managing financial risk. In this article, we will describe fully the inflation, equity, and bond processes of the model. Before doing so, it is worth considering the historical circumstances that led to the development of the model.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.005

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207