MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320079832 · doi:10.58886/jfi.v8i1.2363

Review of the Psychology of Risk-Taking Behavior for Individual Investors

2010· article· en· W4320079832 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Harnum, Tom Cooper, Alex Faseruk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Finance Issues · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Behavioral economicsPsychologyInvestment (military)PersonalityBehavioural sciencesFinanceActuarial scienceSocial psychologyEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the extensive literature within psychology and behavioral finance in order to outline the psychological underpinnings of investor risk behavior. Its objective is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence risk propensity in investment markets. It provides an enumeration of influential factors that play a role in understanding an individual’s propensity for risk including psychological biases, personality characteristics, demographic and socio-economic factors. Such a list should be valuable, not only to researchers in behavioral finance, but also to practitioners interested in improving trading skills and recruitment practices.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Finance IssuesSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207