Financial Markets and Terrorism: The Perspective of the Two Sides of the Conflict
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses a unique data set and advanced econometric methods to examine the effect of terrorism on financial markets of both sides of the barricade in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main finding are: (1) Real economies on both sides suffered significantly during the intifada period; (2) On the avarege share prices on the Israeli side declined significantly due to terror attack by 0.43% where the decline on the other side (probably due to fear of retaliation) was much less and insignificant; (3) There is a bi-directional causality effects of returns in the two markets and both markets are affected by the US market; (4) The more fatal the terror attack is, the greater is the negative effect in the two markets. In the more severe terror attack event (i.e. more people were killed and injured or if it was suicide attack), share prices in the Israeli market declined significantly by 0.63% compared to a decline of 0.16% in less severe attacks. The same pattern, but less significant is revealed on the Palestinian side. In the more severe terror attack, share prices declined significantly by 0.21% compared with 0.07% in less severe attacks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it