York University Working Paper Series An Empirical Assessment of a Consumption CAPM with a Reference Level under Incomplete Consumption Insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turdaliev, and the participants in workshops and conferences at the University of Montreal, Ryerson and York Universities for their comments and suggestions. c°2003 by Andrei Semenov. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including We study asset pricing implications of the preference specification in which an agent derives utility from both the ratio of his consumption to some reference level and this level itself under incomplete consumption insurance and limited asset market participation. Assuming that the reference level responds gradually to changes in aggregate consumption per capita, we show that when asymmetry in individual consumption is taken into account, the obtained estimate of the elasticity of intertemporal substitution is in the conventional range and significantly different from the inverse of the relative risk aversion (RRA) coefficient as the definition of assetholders is tightened. Both the power utility model and the ratio preference specification are rejected statistically. JEL Classification: G12
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.004 |
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".