MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110582559 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v7n10p88

Is Equity Market Efficient? Evidence from a Small Open Economy

2014· article· en· W2110582559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taylan Taner Doğan, Emre Aksoy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock marketTurkishEquity (law)EconomicsStock (firearms)Financial crisisStock market bubbleTurkish economyReal economyFinancial economicsMonetary economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates relationships between macroeconomic variables and stock market over the period of 1987Q1-2012Q1 for Turkey. The study is conducted by evaluating 2001 crisis, the most severe crisis in the history of Turkey which caused a cyclical shift, which has not been in consideration by the previous literature. This study used Toda and Yamamoto (1995) method to uncover those relationships. Here, those investigations provide information on whether Turkish stock market is efficient or not and whether the stock market can be used as a leading indicator for one or more fundamental macroeconomic variables. The results indicated that 2001 crisis had statistically significant impact on the stock market and Turkish economy. Before 2001 crisis, the stock market was not efficient but after 2001 crisis the stock market became efficient. The stock market was also found as a leading indicator for the real economic activity that is consistent with the literature findings on Turkey.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207