MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388439340 · doi:10.7202/1106297ar

La performance et le conservatisme des modèles VAR mensuelle

2023· article· fr· W4388439340 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stéphane Chrétien, Frank Coggins, Paul Gallant

Bibliographic record

VenueAssurances et gestion des risques · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude compare quatorze modèles de Valeur à risque (ci-après VAR) mensuelle des marchés boursiers canadiens et américains dans l’optique d’un gestionnaire de portefeuille institutionnel. Notre analyse se concentre sur l’importance de quatre caractéristiques des modèles VAR par simulations historiques avec filtre, une des approches les plus prometteuses. Nos résultats montrent que les modèles VAR mensuelle par simulations historiques avec un filtre quotidien de type GARCH sont les seuls à ne pas être rejetés à l’égard de tous les tests de performance effectués. Parmi ces modèles, la spécification GARCH asymétrique, qui s’avère la plus conservatrice, indique que les indices S&P/TSX Composite et S&P500 ont une probabilité de 5 % d’une perte moyenne respective d’au moins 7,4 % et 6,7 % de leur valeur sur un mois.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssurances et gestion des risquesSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207