MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2990718699 · doi:10.3968/11312

A Study on the Relationship between Economic Policy Uncertainty and Stock Volatility

2019· article· en· W2990718699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoying Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Stock marketEconomicsFinancial marketChinaFinancial economicsMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsEconomic policyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an important part of economic operation, financial market has been playing an indispensable role, whether positive or strong negative impediment. If the financial market runs steadily, it will undoubtedly benefit the good operation of the economy, but the transition fluctuation of the financial market will easily lead to major difficulties in economic development. Therefore, the government has been committed to adopt different policy measures to regulate the healthy development of the economy and even the financial market, but the frequent introduction of policies will inevitably lead to policy uncertainty, which itself will lead to financial market volatility to a certain extent. Taking stock market as the representative of financial market, this paper studies the correlation between China’s economic policy uncertainty and China’s stock market. Using monthly data from 1995 to 2019, so as to trigger in-depth thinking,this paper mainly uses VAR model to explore whether there is a structural mutation in the relationship between the two, and to find out the reasons behind the mutation.

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)0.009
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social science→Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→