1{2 "validation_errors": [],3 "doc_id": "jof_12895",4 "ontology_version": "1.0",5 "prompt_version": "1.0",6 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",7 "effort": "medium",8 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T23:14:05+00:00",9 "source_sha256": "6a7d9d765862e6f4ba70a5f6af8d138379ee2b4ccc18d25bdcad7b47e10c8341",10 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",11 "payload_chars": 22504,12 "usage": {13 "input": 7208,14 "output": 2051,15 "cache_read": 3968,16 "cache_write": 017 },18 "cost_usd": 0.070646,19 "request_id": "req_011CggqrsQaM56nkyLoMxWZ5",20 "annotation": {21 "genre": "empirical",22 "subfield": "household_finance",23 "subfield_secondary": "asset_pricing; behavioral_finance",24 "primary_method": "survey_or_experiment",25 "identification": {26 "estimand": "Self-reported importance of theorized factors and beliefs (shares of respondents rating factors as very/extremely important; distributions of beliefs about funds and the cross-section of returns)",27 "strategy": "Direct survey of a nationally representative panel (RAND ALP, N=1,013), with questions mapped to specific theories; descriptive proportions split by participation, wealth and education; PCA; OLS correlates",28 "key_assumptions": [29 "Respondents can accurately introspect about and report their decision drivers",30 "Question wording isolates the targeted theory and excludes others",31 "The sample is representative of U.S. individuals"32 ],33 "threats_addressed": [34 "Observational data cannot cleanly separate competing theories with similar predictions",35 "Comprehensibility of questions to laypeople",36 "Heterogeneity across wealth, education and participation subgroups"37 ],38 "causal_language_strength": 2,39 "uses_causal_claim": false40 },41 "abstract_moves": {42 "question": {43 "present": true,44 "sentence_index": 045 },46 "gap": {47 "present": false,48 "sentence_index": -149 },50 "method": {51 "present": true,52 "sentence_index": 053 },54 "results": {55 "present": true,56 "sentence_index": 157 },58 "magnitude": {59 "present": false,60 "sentence_index": -161 },62 "contribution": {63 "present": false,64 "sentence_index": -165 }66 },67 "introduction": {68 "moves": [69 {70 "paragraph_index": 0,71 "move": "motivation"72 },73 {74 "paragraph_index": 0,75 "move": "tension_or_puzzle"76 },77 {78 "paragraph_index": 0,79 "move": "preview_of_approach"80 },81 {82 "paragraph_index": 0,83 "move": "contribution_statement"84 },85 {86 "paragraph_index": 1,87 "move": "preview_of_results"88 },89 {90 "paragraph_index": 2,91 "move": "preview_of_results"92 },93 {94 "paragraph_index": 3,95 "move": "preview_of_results"96 },97 {98 "paragraph_index": 3,99 "move": "related_literature_positioning"100 },101 {102 "paragraph_index": 4,103 "move": "contribution_statement"104 },105 {106 "paragraph_index": 5,107 "move": "policy_or_broader_implication"108 },109 {110 "paragraph_index": 6,111 "move": "roadmap"112 }113 ],114 "contribution_paragraph_index": 0,115 "contribution_types": [116 "new_evidence",117 "new_data_or_measure"118 ],119 "roadmap_present": true,120 "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"121 },122 "section_roles": [123 {124 "idx": 0,125 "role": "introduction"126 },127 {128 "idx": 1,129 "role": "data"130 },131 {132 "idx": 2,133 "role": "results"134 },135 {136 "idx": 3,137 "role": "results"138 },139 {140 "idx": 4,141 "role": "results"142 },143 {144 "idx": 5,145 "role": "conclusion"146 },147 {148 "idx": 6,149 "role": "appendix"150 }151 ],152 "results_presentation": {153 "economic_significance_discussed": false,154 "statistical_significance_language": "unclear",155 "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true156 },157 "robustness": {158 "location": "none_seen",159 "types": []160 },161 "tables": {162 "convention_notes": "Most tables report percentages of respondents rating each factor very or extremely important, for the full sample and for splits by participation, wealth (cutoff of $100,000) and bachelor's degree. Standard errors appear in parentheses below estimates. Notes quote the survey question wording and give subsample N. The PCA and OLS tables report loadings and coefficients.",163 "units_stated_in_notes": true,164 "standard_errors_description": "unclear"165 },166 "figures": {167 "uncertainty_shown": "no_figures"168 },169 "conclusion": {170 "bounded_claims": false,171 "policy_implications": false,172 "open_questions": false,173 "restates_contribution": true174 },175 "hedging": {176 "level": "moderate",177 "typical_devices": [178 "tend to believe",179 "roughly interpreted as",180 "appear to",181 "acknowledging that high-wealth investors are a small share of the sample"182 ]183 },184 "claim_evidence": [185 {186 "claim": "Background risk, horizon, rare disasters, transactional factors and fixed participation costs receive strong support as drivers of equity share",187 "evidence_type": "table",188 "evidence_ref": "Tables II, III, VII, XI, XII"189 },190 {191 "claim": "Six principal components explain about half the variance in importance ratings across 34 factors",192 "evidence_type": "table",193 "evidence_ref": "Table XIII"194 },195 {196 "claim": "Belief in higher active-fund returns and adviser recommendations are the main reasons for buying active funds",197 "evidence_type": "table",198 "evidence_ref": "Table XV"199 },200 {201 "claim": "Respondents view past fund outperformance as a skill signal but mostly reject diseconomies of scale, contrary to Berk and Green",202 "evidence_type": "table",203 "evidence_ref": "Table XV"204 },205 {206 "claim": "Value stocks are seen as safer without higher expected returns; high-momentum stocks are seen as riskier with higher returns",207 "evidence_type": "table",208 "evidence_ref": "Tables XVI, XVII"209 }210 ],211 "structural_summary": "The introduction argues that observational tests struggle to discriminate between investor theories. It then proposes asking investors directly and previews descriptive survey findings in three domains: equity share, active funds, and value/momentum beliefs. It positions the work against corporate-finance survey studies, lists reasons why reported beliefs matter, and closes with a roadmap. A data section describes question design and the sample. Three results sections follow the survey's own order, each organized by family of theory, with percentage tables, subgroup splits, follow-up questions, PCA and regressions. A one-paragraph conclusion restates the findings.",212 "writing_profile_keywords": [213 "survey evidence",214 "theory testing via self-reports",215 "descriptive percentages",216 "many tables, no figures",217 "subgroup splits",218 "household portfolio choice",219 "beliefs about anomalies"220 ],221 "confidence": 0.82,222 "notes": "The excerpts show no figures and no equations. No robustness section is visible, so robustness checks may exist only in the Internet Appendix, which is not shown. Statistical significance is reported through standard errors in parentheses; whether stars are also used is not visible. The intro motivation is split between paragraphs 0 and 3–5 because of truncated text."223 },224 "deterministic_checks": {225 "roadmap_regex": true,226 "contribution_regex_in_intro": false,227 "magnitude_in_abstract": false,228 "abstract_n_sentences": 5,229 "intro_n_paragraphs": 7,230 "intro_n_words": 948,231 "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,232 "hedge_words_in_abstract": 1,233 "stars_mentioned": false,234 "clustered_se_mentioned": false,235 "internet_appendix_mentioned": true,236 "section_roles_rule": {237 "0": "introduction",238 "1": "data",239 "2": "other",240 "3": "other",241 "4": "other",242 "5": "conclusion",243 "6": "appendix"244 }245 },246 "schema_valid": true,247 "code_version": "87c73cd-dirty"248}