MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403982575 · doi:10.3905/jpm.2024.51.1.097

Domesticating the Factor Zoo with Economic Theory

2024· article· en· W4403982575 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

VenueThe Journal of Portfolio Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactor (programming language)EconomicsMathematical economicsComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confusion around the so-called factor zoo is largely due to a failure to distinguish between “attribution” factors and “priced” factors emanating from an asset pricing model. Attribution factors have a zero <italic>expected</italic> mean, do not emanate from asset pricing models, are high in number, can be short term, and should not drive investment policy. Priced factors should have nonzero <italic>expected</italic> premiums, emanate from an asset pricing model, be low in number, be long term, and influence investment policy. Empirical attempts to tame the factor zoo that distinguish between useful, useless, and redundant factors are helpful but could benefit from an overarching theory. The popularity asset pricing model (PAPM), an equilibrium model in which priced factors primarily emanate from the collective tastes of investors, provides a framework for identifying and understanding priced factors, leading to a domesticated factor farm.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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