South–South Cooperation in South and East Asia: An Event Study of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
South–South cooperation has been on the rise in recent years. One of the latest examples is the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) proposed by the Chinese and Pakistani governments in 2013. Using event study methodology, this article examines the impact of events and announcements associated with CPEC on the Pakistan Stock Exchange in Pakistan and the Shanghai Stock Exchange in China. The first key finding of this article is that the initial announcement associated with CPEC had stronger and positive short-term impact on the Pakistan Stock Exchange in comparison with the impact of subsequent CPEC events on the stock market. The second key finding is that the short-term impact of the CPEC initial announcement was stronger on the Pakistan Stock Exchange than on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, possibly due to the substantial difference in the size of the two economies. The empirical results of this article have important implications for investors, corporations and regulators to the Global South.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it