INVESTIGATING ABNORMAL VOLATILITY TRANSMISSION PATTERNS BETWEEN EMERGING AND DEVELOPED STOCK MARKETS: A CASE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this paper is to investigate volatility spillover effects, the impact of past volatility on present market movements, the reaction to positive and negative news, among selected financial markets. The sample stock markets are geographically dispersed on different continents, respectively North America, Europe and Asia. We also investigate whether selected emerging stock markets capture the volatility patterns of developed stock markets located in the same region. The empirical analysis is focused on seven developed stock market indices, i.e. IBEX35 (Spain), DJIA (USA), FTSE100 (UK), TSX Composite (Canada), NIKKEI225 (Japan), DAX (Germany), CAC40 (France) and five emerging stock market indices, i.e. BET (Romania), WIG20 (Poland), BSE (India), SSE Composite (China) and BUX (Hungary) from January 2000 to June 2018. The econometric framework includes symmetric and asymmetric GARCH models i.e. EGARCH and GJR which are performed in order to capture asymmetric volatility clustering, interdependence, correlations, financial integration and leptokurtosis. Symmetric and asymmetric GARCH models revealed that all selected financial markets are highly volatile, including the presence of leverage effect. The stock markets in Hungary, USA, Germany, India and Canada exhibit high positive volatility after global financial crisis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".