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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this study, we explore price discovery across the following three Bitcoin markets: spot, futures, and exchange‐traded funds (ETFs). Employing the fractionally cointegrated vector autoregressive (FCVAR) model, we estimate price discovery in each market using minute‐level price data from October 19, 2021, the launch date of the first US Bitcoin futures‐based Bitcoin ETF, to December 30, 2022. The trivariate FCVAR analysis reveals that the three markets are pairwise cointegrated. In the spot‐futures pair, the spot market emerges as the dominant force in price discovery, while in the spot–ETF pair, the ETF market assumes a leading role. Our paper is the first to show the importance of the newly introduced Bitcoin ETF market in the price discovery process. Extending the analysis to the more recent period, we find that the approval of spot‐based Bitcoin ETFs has weakened the price discovery contribution of the futures‐based ETF and Bitcoin spot market has since become the dominant venue for price discovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it