MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598789001 · doi:10.3938/jkps.53.3837

Statistical Investigation of Connected Structures of Stock Networks in a Financial Time Series

2008· preprint· en· W1598789001 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cheoljun Eom, Gabjin Oh, Seunghwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Physical Society · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)EconometricsStock marketStock market indexVariablesStatisticsEconomicsFinancial economicsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we have investigated factors of determination which can affect the connected structure of a stock network. The representative index for topological properties of a stock network is the number of links with other stocks. We used the multi-factor model, extensively acknowledged in financial literature. In the multi-factor model, common factors act as independent variables while returns of individual stocks act as dependent variables. We calculated the coefficient of determination, which represents the measurement value of the degree in which dependent variables are explained by independent variables. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between the number of links in the stock network and the coefficient of determination in the multi-factor model. We used individual stocks traded on the market indices of Korea, Japan, Canada, Italy and the UK. The results are as follows. We found that the mean coefficient of determination of stocks with a large number of links have higher values than those with a small number of links with other stocks. These results suggest that common factors are significantly deterministic factors to be taken into account when making a stock network. Furthermore, stocks with a large number of links to other stocks can be more affected by common factors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Physical SocietySame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207