MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113181132

Credit contagion channel and its consequences via the standard portfolio credit risk model

2014· article· en· W7113181132 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefaultPortfolioCredit default swap indexAsset (computer security)Quarter (Canadian coin)Credit riskInvestment (military)iTraxxChannel (broadcasting)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using actual default events for all listed firms of 30 economies over the period from the first quarter of 2000 to the second quarter of 2011 and the technique of particle filtering and smoothing with MCMC, we find strong evidence that defaults of small-high-yield firms infect large-high-yield firms which, in turns, generate a feedback contagious effect back onto small-high-yield firms. We demonstrate that this type of credit contagion has a significant impact on the infected group's defaults and tail estimates of portfolio loss. All high-yield groups have systematic risk factors that exhibit a strong AR(1) effect which is an evidence of within group defaults clustering. All investment grade firms are not affected by this channel of credit contagion. In general, the lower grade high-yield firms have a higher default threshold measured in terms of asset value. Small firms are more vulnerable to default than large firms and their defaults could serve as an early warning signal for the system-wide credit contagion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester)Same topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207