MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390521505 · doi:10.1186/s40854-023-00540-z

Business cycle and herding behavior in stock returns: theory and evidence

2024· article· en· W4390521505 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

VenueFinancial Innovation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsHerdingBusiness cycleEconomicsRecessionHerd behaviorBoomStock marketEconometricsStock (firearms)Financial economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study explains the role of economic uncertainty as a bridge between business cycles and investors’ herding behavior. Starting with a conventional stochastic differential equation representing the evolution of stock returns, we provide a simple theoretical model and empirically demonstrate it. Specifically, the growth rate of gross domestic product and the power law exponent are used as proxies for business cycles and herding behavior, respectively. We find stronger herding behavior during recessions than during booms. We attribute this to economic uncertainty, which leads to strong behavioral bias in the stock market. These findings are consistent with the predictions of the quantum model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.217 · 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