MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118729713 · doi:10.5430/afr.v4n3p46

Is Pharmaceuticals Industry Efficient? Evidence from Dhaka Stock Exchange

2015· article· en· W2118729713 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Md. Noman Siddikee, Noor Nahar Begum

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutocorrelationStock (firearms)Stock exchangeEfficient-market hypothesisRandom walk hypothesisMarket efficiencyEconometricsUnit root testTest (biology)Random walkBusinessFinancial economicsUnit rootEconomicsStock marketStatisticsMathematicsFinanceCointegrationEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the weak form market efficiency of the thirteen listed pharmaceuticals company of Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE). We exclude the three listed pharmaceuticals company because of their newly enlistment at DSE. The data consists of the daily returns from 1 st January, 2009 to 31 st December, 2013. The returns of all pharmaceuticals companies are not normally distributed. Unit root test, serial correlation test and runs tests are being used for testing weak form efficiency of the individual stocks return. The findings of the runs test is completely rejecting the random walk theory for all thirteen securities whereas the augmented dickey-fuller (ADF) test are showing inverse result with its all three equations suggesting the weak form efficiency of the Pharmaceuticals stock return. The results of the Autocorrelation and Box-Ljung statistics support random walk theory for ten companies and reject it for ACI, Reckitt Benckiser and Pharma Aid. However, from the summery of findings we can agree that the Pharmaceuticals industry of Bangladesh is just becoming weak-form efficient.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.366
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.035 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207