MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186253313

An Empirical Analysis of the Bond Market Behavior and Cointegration in the Selected APEC's Countries

2012· article· en· W2186253313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chu V. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Finance and Banking · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryCointegrationGranger causalityBondEconomicsMonetary economicsBond marketError correction modelFinancial economicsEconometricsFinanceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the behavior of Treasury bond rates in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s countries. Granger causality tests based on the vector error correction model (VECM) suggest bidirectional Granger causalities between changes in (i) the Canadian and Malaysian Treasury bond rates, (ii) the Canadian and New Zealand bond rates, (iii) the US and Malaysian Treasury bond rates, and (iv) the South Korean and Malaysian Treasury bond rates. The results also reveal unidirectional Granger causalities from changes in (i) the Canadian to US Treasury bond rates, (ii) the South Korean to New Zealand and US Treasury bond rates, (iii) the Malaysian to New Zealand and Thai Treasury bond rates, (iii) the Thai to New Zealand and South Korean Treasury bond rates, and (iv) the US to New Zealand Treasury bond rates. The Granger causality test based on the augmented vector autoregressive (VAR) procedure yields largely similar results from VECM. These empirical findings may be attributable to differences in economic policies, governance, culture, and other institutional arrangements in each of these countries. The empirical results are important for investors and traders since they can use past information in one country to predict prices and returns in the future in other countries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Finance and BankingSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207