MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093633579 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v13n11p16

The Impact of Covid-19 Spread on Stock Markets: The Case of the GCC Countries

2020· article· en· W3093633579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nader Alber, Amr Hany Saleh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Stock marketStock market indexBusinessEmerging marketsCoronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Financial economicsPopulationMonetary economicsEconomicsStock market bubbleGeographyFinanceInternal medicineMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper attempts to investigate the effects of 2020 Covid-19 world-wide spread on stock markets of GCC countries. Coronavirus spread has been measured by cumulative cases, new cases, cumulative deaths and new deaths. Coronavirus spread has been measured by numbers per million of population, while stock market return is measured by Δ in stock market index. Papers conducted in this topic tend to analyze Coronavirus spread in the highly infected countries and focus on the developed stock markets. Countries with low level of infection that have emerging financial markets seem to be less attractive to scholars concerning with Coronavirus spread on stock markets. This is why we try to investigate the GCC stock markets reaction to Covid-19 spread.   Findings show that there are significant differences among stock market indices during the research period. Besides, stock market returns seem to be sensitive to Coronavirus new deaths. Moreover, this has been confirmed for March without any evidence about these effects during April and May 2020.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207