MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288952942 · doi:10.5539/jms.v6n1p141

Modeling the Clustering Volatility of India’s Wholesale Price Index and the Factors Affecting It

2016· article· en· W2288952942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Naim Azimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconometricsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility clusteringStatisticsOrdinary least squaresEconomicsAutocorrelationCluster analysisHeteroscedasticityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes to examine the clustering volatility of India’s Wholesale Price Index throughout the period 1960 to 2014 by applying the ARCH (1) and GARCH (1) model. The pre-conditional requirement for the computation of ARCH (1, 1) required us to perform several other tests i.e. Dickey Fuller, Ordinary Least Squared Regression and post OLS tests for investigating the ARCH effect in the first difference of WPI. The statistical analysis reveals a p-value of 0.569 for the GARCH mean model which is not significant at ∂ 0.05 to explain that the previous period’s volatility can influence the WPI. The coefficient of WPI at first difference exhibits a value of less than 1 which is nice in magnitude with a p-value of 0.005 for ARCH at ∂ 0.05 which is significant to explain the volatility of the WPI. The diagnostic test of autocorrelation in the residuals reveals that the residuals are white noise by exhibiting a corresponding probability value of 0.3757. Since, the overarching objective of this paper is to examine the clustering volatility of the aforementioned variable with regards to the internal shocks, there might have been other factors of external shocks on WPI that have deliberately been overlooked in this paper.

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)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207