MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230599994 · doi:10.7203/metode.8.6923

The role of the brain infinancial decisions: A review of the neuroeconomicsfield

2017· review· ca· W4230599994 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMètode Revista de difusió de la investigació · 2017
Typereview
Languageca
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroeconomicsAffect (linguistics)NeuropsychologyField (mathematics)Financial marketBehavioral economicsPsychologyFinanceCognitionEconomicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we explain the important role neuroscience plays in economic and financial environments. Hence, we present neuroeconomics as a way to describe how decision-making processes affect brain activity, focusing especially on the importance of economic and financial decisions. We answer some questions regarding the role of emotions in finance, the psychological factors present in financial markets, and how neuropsychological stimuli affect our economic decisions. We conclude by citing the main research in the area of neuroscience in financial decision-making processes, and highlight further research projects in these areas.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.438
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.438
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0160.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.311 · 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