MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389573659 · doi:10.2308/jfr-2022-016

The Value of Investors Being in a Deliberative Mindset When Reading News Later Revealed to Be Fake

2023· article· en· W4389573659 on OpenAlex
Stephanie M. Grant, Frank D. Hodge, Samantha C. Seto

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Reporting · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMindsetFake newsReading (process)Value (mathematics)Valuation (finance)CredibilityStock (firearms)PsychologyPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceAdvertisingEpistemologyComputer scienceAccountingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Investors face a difficult challenge in determining whether news they read is true or fake and, according to psychology theory, an additional challenge of ceasing to rely on news subsequently revealed to be fake. To help address this latter challenge, we examine whether prompting investors to be in a deliberative mindset reduces their reliance on news after they learn that it is fake without affecting their reliance on news later revealed to be true. Consistent with theory, investors adjust their valuation assessments when news is later revealed to be fake, and this adjustment is magnified for investors in a deliberative mindset. Importantly, our results reveal that a deliberative mindset does not cause investors to discount news later revealed to be true. Data Availability: Please contact the authors. JEL Classifications: M41; G11; G4; C91; D83.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.299 · 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