MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020561120 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13040083

Dynamic Transmissions and Volatility Spillovers between Global Price and U.S. Producer Price in Agricultural Markets

2020· article· en· W3020561120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jin Guo, Tetsuji Tanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsVolatility (finance)Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityHeteroscedasticityVector autoregressionEconometricsError correction modelAgricultureCointegrationGranger causalityMonetary economicsFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A considerable number of studies have examined the relationship between global prices and local prices in food-importing nations, but the linkages between international prices and the producer prices of large agricultural exporters have been largely ignored. This paper analyzes the connections between world prices and U.S. producer prices in the wheat, soybeans, and corn markets using a vector error correction generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic model with a multivariate Baba-Engle-Kraft Kroner specification (VECM-GARCH-BEKK) and cross-correlation function (CCF). Our findings indicate firstly that a long-run equilibrium relationship exists between international and U.S. producer prices for the three agricultural crops. It also finds a significant bidirectional causality-in-mean and causality-in-variance between international and U.S. producer prices for these crops. Finally, the empirical results suggest that international wheat and corn prices play a leading role in U.S. local markets in return transmissions and that U.S. wheat price can be considered to be a leading indicator of the global wheat price in volatility transmissions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207