MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020888793

Islamic vs Conventional Canadian stock markets : what difference ?

2020· article· en· W3020888793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Malika Neifar

Bibliographic record

VenueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Munich University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsStock marketEconometricsStock (firearms)Volatility (finance)Spillover effectFinancial economicsMacroeconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study empirically assesses the relationship between inflation and stock return in conventional and Islamic Canadian stock markets. The study has covered monthly data for the period 2004:M08−2018 :M4 of canadian economy. We propose a multivariate X-MGARCH or X- MGARCH-X volatility model to assess the dependence of Conventional and Islamic canadian stock market returns on inflation (expected and/or unexpected inflation) and volatility dynamic interdependence of returns (first and second moments). We also examine the constant and dynamic of conditional correlation in both stock market. The main result supports the hypotheses of constant conditional correlation (CCC) and Fisher hypothesis for Islamic canadian stock market. While the Conventional stock market is an efficient one. The volatility spillover is examined estimating an X-DVECH model. The dynamic conditional correlation (DCC) provides evidence of cross border relationship within stocks. We do find also evidence of negative (positive) significant effect of inflation on Islamic (conventional) stock market return volatility.

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)0.006
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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Munich University)Same topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207