MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2927867347 · doi:10.3386/w25720

Policy News and Stock Market Volatility

2019· report· en· W2927867347 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Baker, Nicholas Bloom, Steven J. Davis, Kyle Kost

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersBooth School of Business, University of ChicagoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Stock marketBusinessStock (firearms)Financial economicsEconomicsMonetary economicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We create a newspaper-based Equity Market Volatility (EMV) tracker that moves with the VIX and with the realized volatility of returns on the S&P 500.Parsing the underlying text, we find that 72 percent of EMV articles discuss the Macroeconomic Outlook, and 44 percent discuss Commodity Markets.Policy news is another major source of volatility: 35 percent of EMV articles refer to Fiscal Policy (mostly Tax Policy), 30 percent discuss Monetary Policy, 25 percent refer to one or more forms of Regulation, and 13 percent mention National Security matters.The contribution of particular policy areas fluctuates greatly over time.Trade Policy news, for example, went from a virtual nonfactor in equity market volatility to a leading source after Donald Trump's election and especially after the intensification of U.S-China trade tensions.The share of EMV articles with attention to government policy rises over time, reaching its peak in 2017-18.We validate our measurement approach in various ways.For example, tailoring our EMV tracker to news about petroleum markets yields a measure that rises and falls with the implied and realized volatility of oil prices.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations289
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207