MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974731576 · doi:10.1142/s0219024906003950

TESTING FOR NONLINEARITY & MODELING VOLATILITY IN EMERGING CAPITAL MARKETS: THE CASE OF TUNISIA

2006· article· en· W1974731576 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Saadi, Devinder K. Gandhi, Shantanu Dutta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsCapital marketEmerging marketsEconometricsVolatility (finance)Financial marketFinancial economicsStock (firearms)Empirical researchStock marketNonlinear systemEmpirical evidenceHeteroscedasticityMacroeconomicsFinanceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capital market efficiency of emerging markets has been investigated widely in recent years. But to-date the empirical results remain inconclusive because most empirical studies use empirical tests, which are designed to detect linear structure in financial time series. However, recent developments in econometrics of financial markets show evidence of nonlinear relationships in asset returns in developed markets. Given the features of emerging capital markets, nonlinearity is most likely to be even more present in these developing markets compared to developed ones. In the present paper we reject the weak-form efficient market hypothesis of the Tunisian Stock Market (TSE). Using the BDS test, we find evidence of nonlinearity in variance, and develop a FIEGARCH (1, 1) model accordingly.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207