MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388457228 · doi:10.1080/14697688.2023.2269999

Cryptocurrency factor momentum

2023· article· en· W4388457228 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Finance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNarodowe Centrum Nauki
KeywordsCryptocurrencyEconomicsEconometricsVolatility (finance)Financial economicsStock (firearms)Factor analysisMomentum (technical analysis)SkewnessAutocorrelationMathematicsStatisticsGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is there a momentum effect in cryptocurrency anomalies? To answer this, we analyze data from over 3900 coins spanning the years 2014 to 2022 and replicate 34 anomalies in the cross-section of cryptocurrency returns. We document a discernible pattern in factor premia: past winners consistently outperform losers. The effect persists across subperiods, withstands various methodological approaches, and its magnitude parallels that of its stock market counterpart. However, the autocorrelation in factor returns is not widespread and primarily stems from size and volatility anomalies. Additionally, unlike in stocks, cryptocurrency factor momentum originates from price momentum, which subsequently transfers to the factor level.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.008

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.191 · 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