MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1700307521 · doi:10.3390/jrfm8030337

An Empirical Analysis for the Prediction of a Financial Crisis in Turkey through the Use of Forecast Error Measures

2015· article· en· W1700307521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Şeyma Çalışkan Çavdar, Alev Dilek Aydın

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsFinancial crisisEconomicsMean absolute percentage errorArtificial neural networkBreakoutMean absolute errorStatisticsMathematicsFinancial economicsComputer scienceMean squared errorMacroeconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we try to examine whether the forecast errors obtained by the ANN models affect the breakout of financial crises. Additionally, we try to investigate how much the asymmetric information and forecast errors are reflected on the output values. In our study, we used the exchange rate of USD/TRY (USD), the Borsa Istanbul 100 Index (BIST), and gold price (GP) as our output variables of our Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models. We observe that the predicted ANN model has a strong explanation capability for the 2001 and 2008 crises. Our calculations of some symmetry measures such as mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), symmetric mean absolute percentage error (sMAPE), and Shannon entropy (SE), clearly demonstrate the degree of asymmetric information and the deterioration of the financial system prior to, during, and after the financial crisis. We found that the asymmetric information prior to crisis is larger as compared to other periods. This situation can be interpreted as early warning signals before the potential crises. This evidence seems to favor an asymmetric information view of financial crises.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207