MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130027710

The Long-run Relationship among Index-linked Bonds and Conventional Bonds

2013· article· en· W2130027710 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noureddine Benlagha

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationBondVolatility (finance)EconomicsStructural breakSubprime crisisIndex (typography)EconometricsArbitrageFinancial economicsMonetary economicsFinancial crisisKeynesian economicsFinanceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the existence of arbitrage between index linked bonds and conventional bonds. The long-run equilibrium relationship among two French bonds yields (The OAT yields and OATi) is also studied empirically. In practice, the Johansen methodology is applied to estimate different VAR-based cointegration tests. The presence of a structural break due to the subprime crisis is discussed as well. Two main results are reached: First, the cointegration test indicates the existence of a long run relationship between the OAT and OATi return, and then the co-movement of the latter is confirmed, a result which is believed to be important to understand the bond market¡¯s mechanism. Second, the structural break test shows the presence of structural change in the relation between the two types of bonds. This structural break is due to an increase of volatility in the OAT and OATi returns in the subprime crisis period.

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)0.011
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207