MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504240467 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n8p71

Extreme Value Volatility Estimators and Realized Volatility of Istanbul Stock Exchange: Evidence from Emerging Market

2016· article· en· W2504240467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hakkı Öztürk, Ümit Erol, Aslı Yüksel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorEconometricsVolatility (finance)Forward volatilityEconomicsRealized varianceExtreme value theoryAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility swapVolatility smileImplied volatilityVolatility risk premiumStock exchangeFinancial economicsStatisticsMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the forecasting performance of alternative models for the one-day ahead forecasts of BIST-30 index (Istanbul Stock Exchange- Borsa Istanbul major index that contains 30 blue-chip stocks) volatility. Realized volatility is used as the relevant benchmark for the evaluation of forecasts. We document evidence, which shows that realized volatility is a less noisy estimator than the daily square benchmark explaining more of the variation in the volatility. In addition; the benefit of using extreme value estimators as volatility proxies are discussed. It is empirically demonstrated that the extreme value estimators are 5 to 8 times more efficient than historical volatility measures. The use of extreme value estimators with simple forecasting models provide better short-term forecasts than the GARCH based volatility forecasts due to higher efficiency of extreme value estimators.

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)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.265
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207