1{2 "validation_errors": [],3 "doc_id": "jof_12701",4 "ontology_version": "1.0",5 "prompt_version": "1.0",6 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",7 "effort": "medium",8 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T23:03:46+00:00",9 "source_sha256": "497b4c3ad229395c9477265ba438d5fec0d6daac46422a2a77bd9a3d8bb238c2",10 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",11 "payload_chars": 23221,12 "usage": {13 "input": 7582,14 "output": 1993,15 "cache_read": 3968,16 "cache_write": 017 },18 "cost_usd": 0.070982,19 "request_id": "req_011Cggq5TJEKhimziquDM3Kf",20 "annotation": {21 "genre": "empirical",22 "subfield": "behavioral_finance",23 "subfield_secondary": "financial_intermediation_banking",24 "primary_method": "survey_or_experiment",25 "identification": {26 "estimand": "Effect of nonincentivized rank feedback and of payout-relevant tournament incentives on the share invested in a risky asset, conditional on prior rank, compared with a linear-incentive baseline.",27 "strategy": "Randomized between-subject treatments (baseline, ranking, tournament) run as lab-in-the-field experiments with professionals, lab experiments with students, and further treatments varying frame, payoff recipient, and identity prime. Analysis uses random-effects panel regressions with AR(1) disturbances and probit models.",28 "key_assumptions": [29 "Random assignment of participants to treatments",30 "Experimental investment choices reflect real-world preferences",31 "Rank feedback is anonymous and does not affect payoffs in the ranking treatment"32 ],33 "threats_addressed": [34 "Professional identity importing (identity priming treatments)",35 "Investment framing (abstract lottery frame)",36 "Payoff consequences (family return treatment)",37 "Gender composition",38 "Subject-pool differences (student comparison)"39 ],40 "causal_language_strength": 4,41 "uses_causal_claim": true42 },43 "abstract_moves": {44 "question": {45 "present": true,46 "sentence_index": 147 },48 "gap": {49 "present": true,50 "sentence_index": 051 },52 "method": {53 "present": true,54 "sentence_index": 155 },56 "results": {57 "present": true,58 "sentence_index": 259 },60 "magnitude": {61 "present": false,62 "sentence_index": -163 },64 "contribution": {65 "present": false,66 "sentence_index": -167 }68 },69 "introduction": {70 "moves": [71 {72 "paragraph_index": 0,73 "move": "motivation"74 },75 {76 "paragraph_index": 0,77 "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"78 },79 {80 "paragraph_index": 1,81 "move": "preview_of_approach"82 },83 {84 "paragraph_index": 1,85 "move": "preview_of_results"86 },87 {88 "paragraph_index": 2,89 "move": "preview_of_approach"90 },91 {92 "paragraph_index": 2,93 "move": "preview_of_results"94 },95 {96 "paragraph_index": 3,97 "move": "tension_or_puzzle"98 },99 {100 "paragraph_index": 3,101 "move": "robustness_mention"102 },103 {104 "paragraph_index": 5,105 "move": "contribution_statement"106 },107 {108 "paragraph_index": 5,109 "move": "related_literature_positioning"110 },111 {112 "paragraph_index": 6,113 "move": "related_literature_positioning"114 },115 {116 "paragraph_index": 7,117 "move": "related_literature_positioning"118 },119 {120 "paragraph_index": 8,121 "move": "policy_or_broader_implication"122 }123 ],124 "contribution_paragraph_index": 5,125 "contribution_types": [126 "new_evidence"127 ],128 "roadmap_present": false,129 "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"130 },131 "section_roles": [132 {133 "idx": 0,134 "role": "introduction"135 },136 {137 "idx": 1,138 "role": "results"139 },140 {141 "idx": 2,142 "role": "results"143 },144 {145 "idx": 3,146 "role": "robustness"147 },148 {149 "idx": 4,150 "role": "conclusion"151 }152 ],153 "results_presentation": {154 "economic_significance_discussed": false,155 "statistical_significance_language": "unclear",156 "magnitude_statements_in_intro": false157 },158 "robustness": {159 "location": "main_text_section",160 "types": [161 "alternative_specification",162 "subsample",163 "other"164 ]165 },166 "tables": {167 "convention_notes": "Each table reports random-effects panel regressions with AR(1) disturbances, or probit estimates, of risky-asset share on treatment and rank variables. Notes define the dependent variable and the lagged return controls.",168 "units_stated_in_notes": true,169 "standard_errors_description": "unclear"170 },171 "figures": {172 "uncertainty_shown": "unclear"173 },174 "conclusion": {175 "bounded_claims": true,176 "policy_implications": true,177 "open_questions": true,178 "restates_contribution": true179 },180 "hedging": {181 "level": "moderate",182 "typical_devices": [183 "results suggest",184 "could",185 "may indicate",186 "consistent with",187 "less clear-cut"188 ]189 },190 "claim_evidence": [191 {192 "claim": "Underperforming professionals take more risk when a nonincentivized ranking is shown, relative to baseline",193 "evidence_type": "table",194 "evidence_ref": "Table I; Figure 1"195 },196 {197 "claim": "Students respond only to payout-relevant tournament rankings, not to pure rank feedback",198 "evidence_type": "table",199 "evidence_ref": "Table II; Figure 2"200 },201 {202 "claim": "Rank-driven risk-taking differs between professionals and students",203 "evidence_type": "table",204 "evidence_ref": "Table III"205 },206 {207 "claim": "The rank effect is robust to an abstract lottery frame and to family-return payoffs",208 "evidence_type": "table",209 "evidence_ref": "Table IV; Figure 4"210 },211 {212 "claim": "The rank effect persists under private-identity priming, with no gender differences",213 "evidence_type": "table",214 "evidence_ref": "Table V; Figure 5"215 },216 {217 "claim": "Professionals report stronger preferences for relative performance than students",218 "evidence_type": "figure",219 "evidence_ref": "Figure 3"220 }221 ],222 "structural_summary": "The introduction motivates the paper with tournament incentives and the financial crisis, then splits incentives into monetary and nonmonetary rank components. It previews the professional experiment, a student comparison, and identity-transfer tests, followed by three literature contributions and a list of policy implications. The body has one section per experiment (professionals, students), then a section of additional experiments on identity and framing. The conclusion restates findings, discusses possible sources of the effect (self-selection, industry culture), gives implications for regulators and employers, and calls for future research.",223 "writing_profile_keywords": [224 "lab-in-the-field experiment",225 "financial professionals",226 "rank incentives",227 "subject-pool comparison",228 "social identity",229 "policy implications"230 ],231 "confidence": 0.8,232 "notes": "The abstract text is truncated and includes the first line of the introduction. Introduction paragraph 4 is a fragment split into single-word items. The significance reporting convention is not visible in the table notes shown."233 },234 "deterministic_checks": {235 "roadmap_regex": false,236 "contribution_regex_in_intro": true,237 "magnitude_in_abstract": false,238 "abstract_n_sentences": 8,239 "intro_n_paragraphs": 16,240 "intro_n_words": 1330,241 "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,242 "hedge_words_in_abstract": 0,243 "stars_mentioned": false,244 "clustered_se_mentioned": false,245 "internet_appendix_mentioned": false,246 "section_roles_rule": {247 "0": "introduction",248 "1": "other",249 "2": "other",250 "3": "other",251 "4": "conclusion"252 }253 },254 "schema_valid": true,255 "code_version": "feb6c9e-dirty"256}