{
 "validation_errors": [],
 "doc_id": "jof_12768",
 "ontology_version": "1.0",
 "prompt_version": "1.0",
 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",
 "effort": "medium",
 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T23:08:30+00:00",
 "source_sha256": "1d24c8f974b29cb6f2b1d51ef4a7478f16e44a772cee214e4bc82339b053cc3b",
 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",
 "payload_chars": 21201,
 "usage": {
  "input": 6629,
  "output": 1881,
  "cache_read": 3968,
  "cache_write": 0
 },
 "cost_usd": 0.06493,
 "request_id": "req_011CggqSHKnsFwpsf8BVeY35",
 "annotation": {
  "genre": "empirical",
  "subfield": "asset_pricing",
  "subfield_secondary": "market_microstructure; experimental finance",
  "primary_method": "survey_or_experiment",
  "identification": {
   "estimand": "Treatment effects of exogenous information-network structure (none, complete, circle, core-periphery) on signal acquisition, volume, liquidity, information aggregation, price informativeness and profits",
   "strategy": "Between-session laboratory treatments that randomly vary the information network, analyzed with ordered probit and OLS regressions on treatment dummies, using standard errors clustered at subject level",
   "key_assumptions": [
    "Network structure is exogenous and assigned by design",
    "Information sharing is automatic, perfect and nonstrategic",
    "Subjects in different sessions are comparable"
   ],
   "threats_addressed": [
    "Endogenous network formation (removed by imposing exogenous networks)",
    "Within-subject dependence (handled by clustering)"
   ],
   "causal_language_strength": 4,
   "uses_causal_claim": true
  },
  "abstract_moves": {
   "question": {
    "present": true,
    "sentence_index": 0
   },
   "gap": {
    "present": false,
    "sentence_index": -1
   },
   "method": {
    "present": true,
    "sentence_index": 0
   },
   "results": {
    "present": true,
    "sentence_index": 1
   },
   "magnitude": {
    "present": false,
    "sentence_index": -1
   },
   "contribution": {
    "present": false,
    "sentence_index": -1
   }
  },
  "introduction": {
   "moves": [
    {
     "paragraph_index": 0,
     "move": "motivation"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 0,
     "move": "literature_gap"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 1,
     "move": "preview_of_approach"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 2,
     "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 2,
     "move": "preview_of_results"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 3,
     "move": "preview_of_results"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 4,
     "move": "preview_of_results"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 4,
     "move": "tension_or_puzzle"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 4,
     "move": "related_literature_positioning"
    }
   ],
   "contribution_paragraph_index": 1,
   "contribution_types": [
    "new_evidence"
   ],
   "roadmap_present": false,
   "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"
  },
  "section_roles": [
   {
    "idx": 0,
    "role": "introduction"
   },
   {
    "idx": 1,
    "role": "empirical_design"
   },
   {
    "idx": 2,
    "role": "results"
   },
   {
    "idx": 3,
    "role": "other"
   },
   {
    "idx": 4,
    "role": "conclusion"
   }
  ],
  "results_presentation": {
   "economic_significance_discussed": true,
   "statistical_significance_language": "stars_and_tstats",
   "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true
  },
  "robustness": {
   "location": "none_seen",
   "types": []
  },
  "tables": {
   "convention_notes": "Tables pair period-average descriptive statistics, reported with standard deviations, with regression tables. The regressions use treatment dummies against a nonnetworked baseline and include a period control. Standard errors are clustered by subject and reported in parentheses, with stars marking significance. Notes define each dependent variable precisely.",
   "units_stated_in_notes": true,
   "standard_errors_description": "clustered"
  },
  "figures": {
   "uncertainty_shown": "mixed"
  },
  "conclusion": {
   "bounded_claims": true,
   "policy_implications": false,
   "open_questions": true,
   "restates_contribution": true
  },
  "hedging": {
   "level": "moderate",
   "typical_devices": [
    "on average",
    "typically",
    "explicit design simplifications acknowledged",
    "might not be as strong"
   ]
  },
  "claim_evidence": [
   {
    "claim": "Signal acquisition probability and quantity fall as a trader's number of network connections rises.",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Tables II, III, IV; Figure 2"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Information sharing raises trading volume and improves liquidity.",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table V"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Prices aggregate more of the available information with sharing, and aggregation rises with network density.",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table VI; Figures 3-4"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Price informativeness about the true state does not improve with social communication.",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table IX; Figures 5-6"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Net earnings are higher under sharing because of savings on signal costs.",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Tables X, XIII"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Prices support semi-strong but not strong-form efficiency.",
    "evidence_type": "prior_literature",
    "evidence_ref": "Discussion; Page and Siemroth (2018)"
   }
  ],
  "structural_summary": "The introduction opens with the rational-expectations literature on costly information and flags the absence of social networks as an open question. It then describes the exogenous-network setup and frames a trade-off between richer information sets and free-riding. Results are previewed sequentially: crowding out of acquisition, then liquidity, aggregation, informativeness and earnings, with a counter-to-conventional-wisdom point on forecasting quality. A design section presents the lab procedures and the four network treatments. A long results section is organized by outcome, using regressions on treatment dummies. A discussion section links the findings to market efficiency, and a short conclusion restates the findings and lists extensions.",
  "writing_profile_keywords": [
   "laboratory experiment",
   "information networks",
   "free-riding",
   "treatment comparisons",
   "price efficiency",
   "outcome-by-outcome results"
  ],
  "confidence": 0.82,
  "notes": "Experimental asset-market paper with no equations shown. No explicit robustness section is visible in the excerpts. An Internet Appendix exists, but its contents are not shown."
 },
 "deterministic_checks": {
  "roadmap_regex": false,
  "contribution_regex_in_intro": false,
  "magnitude_in_abstract": false,
  "abstract_n_sentences": 4,
  "intro_n_paragraphs": 5,
  "intro_n_words": 792,
  "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,
  "hedge_words_in_abstract": 0,
  "stars_mentioned": false,
  "clustered_se_mentioned": true,
  "internet_appendix_mentioned": false,
  "section_roles_rule": {
   "0": "introduction",
   "1": "other",
   "2": "results",
   "3": "conclusion",
   "4": "conclusion"
  }
 },
 "schema_valid": true,
 "code_version": "87c73cd-dirty"
}