MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206993829 · doi:10.3386/w29210

Market Freezes

2021· report· en· W4206993829 on OpenAlexaff
Gu Chao, Guido Menzio, Randall Wright, Zhu Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2021
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the financial crisis apparently centralized markets continued to function while trade in OTC markets froze.We use search-and-bargaining theory to ascertain conditions that allow trade to temporarily freeze in decentralized markets, focusing on the roles of liquidity and selffulfilling prophecies.We show standard models can have recurrent, belief-driven hot and cold spells, but not freezes and thaws.A simple specification that has freezes assumes negative returns.A more realistic one incorporates information frictions (costly asset-quality verification).Another uses different frictions to get credit freezes.We also discuss policy implications, and go into detail on the nature of OTC markets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.467
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.090 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic Research→French-language works237,207→