MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014855171 · doi:10.1111/jfir.12210

STOCK MARKET OPENNESS AND MARKET QUALITY: EVIDENCE FROM THE SHANGHAI–HONG KONG STOCK CONNECT PROGRAM

2020· article· en· W3014855171 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Financial Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityStock marketBusinessOpenness to experienceMonetary economicsVolatility (finance)ChinaPrimary marketStock market bubbleStock exchangeMarket depthCapital marketEconomicsFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the impact of capital market openness on high‐frequency market quality in China. The Shanghai–Hong Kong Stock Connect program (SHHKConnect) opens China's stock market to foreign investors and offers a natural experiment to investigate this question. Using a difference‐in‐differences approach, we find that market liberalization leads to lower quoted spread, lower effective spread, lower market depth, and higher short‐term volatility. Our findings imply that opening the markets to more sophisticated foreign investors is associated with higher competition and more cross‐market arbitrage activities, narrowing the spread and reducing liquidity providers’ profits, but increasing the price impact and short‐term volatility of connected stocks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.112 · 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