An Empirical Examination of International Diversification Benefits in Central European Emerging Equity Markets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to examine the short and long-term relationships between the seven developed equity markets of United-States, Canada, United-Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and three Central European emerging equity markets of Czech-Republic, Hungary and Poland in order to study their implications on the potential gains from international diversification in these emerging markets. The shortterm relationships measured by the correlation matrix indicate a lower level of correlation between developed and emerging equity markets of Central Europe. In order to carry out the long-term relationships we resorted to Johansen cointegration techniques recently developed. The tests show that there is no long-term relationship between G7 developed equity markets and Central European emerging equity markets. Theses results indicate that the increase of financial integration degree and comovement between equity markets has not significantly affected the expected benefits from international diversification in these emerging markets. These gains remain significantly important for the G7 industrial investors in the Central European emerging equity markets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it