MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161846662 · doi:10.1108/01443580910973592

Forecasting in inefficient commodity markets

2009· article· en· W2161846662 on OpenAlexaffabout
Periklis Gogas, Apostolos Serletis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityEconometricsVolatility (finance)Autoregressive modelVariance (accounting)Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityConditional varianceEconomicsStochastic volatilityCommodityRandom walkComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper set out to use an autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARCH)‐type model to capture the time‐varying conditional variance of Alberta electricity prices. This is of major importance in forecasting, since ARCH‐type models allow the conditional variance to depend on elements of the information set. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses the model to perform static and dynamic forecasts over different horizons and to compare its forecasting performance with a random walk and a moving average model. Findings The paper provides a study of hourly electricity prices using recent advances in the financial econometrics literature. Originality/value The contribution of the paper is its use of models of changing volatility to properly identify the type of heteroscedasticity in the data‐generation processes. This is of major importance in forecasting.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic StudiesSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207