MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Growth Stocks for Middle-class Investors: Merrill Lynch & Co., 1914–41

2003· book-chapter· en· W4388400475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edwin J. Perkins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Private equityCommon stockWorld classCapital marketStock (firearms)Stock exchangeFinancial marketQuarter (Canadian coin)Stock marketPensionBusinessEconomicsFinancePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the major consequences of the First World War was that New York surpassed London as the world’s leading financial centre. Despite challenges from Tokyo in the late 1980s, New York has retained its dominant position in world capital markets. Today, the combined market value of the corporate shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange and its main competitor, Nasdaq, top the world’s equity markets by a large margin.Here, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, Americans have a higher participation rate in equity markets than the citizens of any other nation. Approximately two-thirds of US households currently own common stock either through direct investment or indirectly through mutual funds. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the managers of private pension plans, which are typically designed for a broad range of employees from top executives to assembly line workers, have increasingly focused on the acquisition of equities rather than bonds for their portfolios. Over 40 per cent of the net worth of American households is represented by common stocks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.015

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism→French-language works237,207→