The Financial Market of Indices of Socioeconomic Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study discusses how financial economic theory and its quantitative tools can be applied to create socioeconomic indices and develop a financial market for the so-called “socioeconomic well-being indices”. In this study, we quantify socioeconomic well-being by assigning a dollar value to the well-being factors of selected countries; this is analogous to how the Dow 30 encapsulates the financial health of the US market. While environmental, social, and governance (ESG) financial markets address socioeconomic issues, our focus is broader, encompassing national citizens’ well-being. The dollar-denominated socioeconomic indices for each country can be viewed as financial assets that can serve as risky assets for constructing a global index, which, in turn, serves as a “market of well-being socioeconomic index”. This novel global index of well-being, paralleling the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), provides a comprehensive representation of the world’s socioeconomic status. Through advanced financial econometrics and dynamic asset pricing methodologies, we evaluate the potential for significant downturns in both the socioeconomic well-being indices of individual countries and the aggregate global index. This innovative approach allows us to engineer financial instruments akin to portfolio insurance, such as index puts, designed to hedge against these downturn risks. Our findings propose a financial market model for well-being indices, encouraging the financial industry to adopt and trade these indices as mechanisms to manage and hedge against downturn risks in well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".