MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154860420 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v22i3.1427

Bootstrap Causality Tests Of The Relationship Between The Equity Markets Of The US And Other Developed Countries: Pre- And Post-September 11

2011· article· en· W2154860420 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdulnasser Hatemi‐J, Eduardo Roca, Daniel Bunčić

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranger causalityEquity (law)Causality (physics)EconomicsStructural breakEconometricsFinancial economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyse the causal relationship between the equity markets of the US and those of the UK, Japan, Germany, France, Canada and Australia based on leveraged bootstrap approach developed by Hacker and Hatemi-J (2005). This method overcomes problems of non-normalities and ARCH effects in the data. Using weekly MSCI price indices, we focus our investigation on the period 1998 to 2005 which we divided into two sub-periods to take into account the potential structural break arising from September 11. Our results show that before September 11, there was bi-directional causality between the US and Japan and between the US and Germany. In addition, there was also a uni-directional causality from the US to Canada and from the US to France. After September 11, the only causality was a unidirectional one from the US to Japan and from the UK to the US. Thus, after September 11, the US Granger-caused a fewer number of markets. This could imply that after September 11, the other markets became more efficient in responding to information transmitted from the US market.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.044 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR)Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207