The Six Decades of the Capital Asset Pricing Model: A Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper re-examines the presence of the Sharpe–Treynor–Lintner–Mossin capital asset pricing model (CAPM) in the finance literature and is accompanied by a bibliometric summary analysis. The popular model is in its sixth decade; we summarized the relevance of the CAPM using publication and citation trends, as well as identifying its most prolific and impactful contributors. This paper is based on a systematic review of the literature and was completed with the help of various bibliometric techniques. During the study process, we presented a map of various themes and areas of the CAPM and its evolution. Our findings indicate that the extant literature on this topic (the cost of capital, asset pricing, portfolio, risk management, beta, systematic risk, and value premium) is based on the principles and assumptions of the CAPM. We are considering suggestions on the future use, trend, and direction of the CAPM, based on our summary of thematically developed clusters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".