MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414111259 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhaf070

The Persistence of Miscalibration

2025· article· en· W4414111259 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Boutros, Itzhak Ben‐David, John R. Graham, Campbell R. Harvey, John W. Payne

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)Stock (firearms)Confidence intervalStock marketCohortBusiness cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We analyze a panel of over 28,400 S&P 500 return forecasts by CFOs to examine whether the extent of CFOs’ miscalibration—providing forecast confidence intervals that are too narrow—decreases over time. We find no improvement with task repetition nor evidence of learning, that is, no improvement in response to past performance. Across CFOs, miscalibration appears to be a persistent personal trait. We find some evidence that the degree of miscalibration is related to birth cohort and stock market familiarity.

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 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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207