Volatility in International Stock Markets: An Empirical Study during COVID-19
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting volatility is a must in the finance domain. Estimations of volatility, along with the central tendency, permit us to evaluate the chances of getting a particular result. Financial analysts are frequently challenged with the assignment of diversifying assets in order to form efficient portfolios with a higher risk to reward ratio. The objective of this research is to analyze the influence of COVID-19 on the return and volatility of the stock market indices of the top 10 countries based on GDP using a widely applied econometric model—generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH). For this purpose, the daily returns of market indices from January 2019 to June 2020 were taken into consideration. The results reveal daily negative mean returns for all market indices during the COVID period (January 2020 to June 2020). Though the second quarter of the COVID period reflects a bounce back for all market indices with altered strengths, the volatility remains higher than in normal periods, signaling a bearish tendency in the market. The COVID variable, as an exogenous variance regressor in GARCH modeling, is found to be positive and significant for all market indices. Furthermore, the results confirmed the mean-reverting process for all market indices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it