Is Pharmaceuticals Industry Efficient? Evidence from Dhaka Stock Exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".