MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321104660 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16020126

Better Not Forget: On the Memory of S&P 500 Survivor Stock Companies

2023· article· en· W4321104660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Klaus Grobys, Yao Han, James W. Kolari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHurst exponentStock (firearms)Long memoryEconomicsEconometricsRescaled rangeCapital asset pricing modelFinancial economicsDetrended fluctuation analysisStatisticsMathematicsHistoryVolatility (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the dependency structure of S&P 500 survivor stocks. Using a hand-collected sample of stocks that survived in the S&P 500 since March 1957, we employ rescaled/range analysis to investigate survivors. First, we find nonlinearities in the return processes of survivor stocks due to Paretian tails. Second, the return processes of very long-lived outliers exhibit long-term memories with Hurst exponents that significantly exceed one half on average. Third, sample-split tests reveal that the memory on average has virtually not changed over time—that is, survivor stocks do not forget. Fourth, and last, the long-term memory of survivor stocks appears to be unrelated to their exposures to traditional asset pricing risk factors.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→