MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771537913 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n1p13

The Liquidity of Bitcoin

2017· article· en· W2771537913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hio Loi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityMonetary economicsCryptocurrencyEconomicsBusinessEconometricsFinancial economicsComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the liquidity of Bitcoin using the time series daily data over the period 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2015. Based on the available data for Bitcoin, five liquidity measures are chosen to compare the liquidities among five Bitcoin exchanges and the liquidities of different sizes of stocks. The results suggest that the liquidity of Bitcoin depends on the choice of the Bitcoin exchanges, and Bitfinex, one of the Bitcoin exchanges, provides the highest liquidity for Bitcoin trading. Moreover, the results indicate that, on average, stocks are more liquid than Bitcoin.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207