MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096866749 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v3n3p109

Test of Arbitrage Pricing Theory on the Tehran Stock Exchange: The Case of A Shariah-Compliant Close Economy

2011· article· en· W2096866749 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pooya Sabetfar, Cheng Fan Fah, Shamsher Mohamad, Bany Ariffin Amin Noordin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsArbitrageArbitrage pricing theoryFinancial economicsSanctionsStock marketStock (firearms)Stock exchangeCapital asset pricing modelShariaIslamEconometricsFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides weak evidence in support for the application of Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) on the Iranian stock market in the Sharia is the sacred law of Islam faith.) based close economy. Tests conducted using the principal component analysis and canonical correlation model showed that at least one to three factors that can explain the cross-section of expected returns in this market. Financial and economical sanctions possibly explain the negative stock market returns which reflect the reaction of investors to the announcement of sanctions. Overall, the results suggest that there are four groups of macroeconomic variables in the test period that affect stock returns for the test period, 1991 to 2008, but the significance of these factors is not consistent over time. In general the findings document a weak applicability of APT in this market.Keywords: Full Sharia economy, Sanction, Canonical Correlation and Arbitrage Pricing Theory

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207