MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297687844 · doi:10.54691/bcpbm.v25i.1836

Asset Price Bubble under Behaviroral Finance Theory: Based on Log-Periodic Power Law Model

2022· article· en· W4297687844 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

VenueBCP Business & Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic bubbleEconomicsFinancial economicsStock market crashStock marketStock market bubbleFutures contractMark to modelFinancial marketMarket depthMonetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The asset price bubble problem is not only the most concerned topic in the financial circle, but also one of the most important research topics in the financial circle. In history, every time asset prices skyrocketed, bubbles were accumulated, and every asset price crash resulted in a massive shrinking of wealth, bankruptcy of enterprises, and economic recession. This paper is based on the theory of investor behavioral bias in behavioral finance theory, and is based on the log-periodic power law (LPPL) theory of iron ore futures, apple futures, coke futures and stock market indices that is widely used in Chinese financial markets. The market index and bitcoin price are empirically analyzed through the process of bubble accumulation, and the stock market index of China's stock market and the index of China's capital market are predicted and analyzed based on LPPL theory.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.182 · 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