MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386651161 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhad072

Adverse Selection and Climate Risk: A Response to

2023· article· en· W4386651161 on OpenAlexaff
Michael LaCour‐Little, Andrey D. Pavlov, Susan M. Wächter

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecuritizationAdverse selectionLoanSelection (genetic algorithm)Actuarial scienceTest (biology)Limit (mathematics)BusinessEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We identify two issues in the work of Ouazad and Kahn (2022). Correcting either reverses the original result. The two changes are to use the correct FHFA conforming loan limits for each county and year and to compare the individual loan amount to that limit correctly. There is no evidence that lenders transfer climate risk by altering loan origination and securitization behavior. None of our results calls into question the value and importance of the O&K model as a test for adverse selection. The question addressed and the setup of the test are important and should be replicated over time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207