MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3001355363

Heterogeneous Responses to China and Oil Shocks: the G7 Stock Markets

2018· preprint· en· W3001355363 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamal Bouoiyour, Refk Selmi

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsStock (firearms)Stock marketChinaSlowdownOil priceQuantile regressionMonetary economicsQuantileRecessionEconomic slowdownFinancial economicsEconometricsEconomyMacroeconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given its size and integration with the global economy, Chinese economic downturn could have momentous spillovers to the rest of the world and result in a decline in oil prices. This article investigates whether the Chinese economic slowdown and the oil prices affect the G7 stock market. We use a Quantile-on-Quantile regression approach to capture the correlation structure between the G7 stock returns and oil price returns under different G7 market conditions with considering nuances of oil price movements and Chinese slowdown. Data are employed over the period of January 1999 ~ December 2015. Our results show that the responses of G7 stock returns to China and oil shocks are likely to be asymmetric, nonlinear and country-specific. The stock market returns of Germany, Italy and Canada appear the most vulnerable to these shocks. Our results suggest that international investors consider the states of stock market returns and oil price alongside with the interaction effect between China's economic slowdown and oil market.

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)0.002
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→