MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995081385 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v10n3p366

Pooled Mean Group Approach to Test the Determinants of Financial Integration: Evidence From OECD and G20 Countries

2019· article· en· W2995081385 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahliman Abbasov

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial integrationFinancial crisisEconomicsGlobalizationShort runFinancial globalizationEconomic integrationLiberalizationInternational economicsRegression analysisFinanceMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsFinancial market

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the role of financial liberalization, trade integration, economic growth and global financial crisis on financial integration level of selected OECD and G20 countries during the period of 2000-2016. PMG technique has been implemented to estimate the ARDL model. Regression results suggest a statistically significant long run co-integration relationship between financial integration and independent variables. Analysis also concludes that there are both long run and short run positive impact of trade integration level on financial integration level. The study also concludes that the global financial crisis has had a negative influence on global financial integration both in the short run and long run. But according to the regression results the impact of financial liberalization on the actual financial integration level of the countries only appears in the long run. Results also indicate that positive impact of economic growth on financial globalization level appears only in the long run.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207