Examining the random walk hypothesis in the Amman stock exchange: An analytical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aimed to examine the weak-form efficiency of the Amman Stock Exchange using the weekly stock closing prices of shares for the period 2017-2019. In order to achieve the research objective, the study used the time lags that occurred between one and three weeks through the following tests: simple regression, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Spearman correlation coefficient. The study sample consisted of 179 companies. The current study concluded that the weekly stock closing prices of the shares of public joint-stock companies in the Amman Stock Exchange do not follow the Random Walk Hypothesis of prices, and therefore, do not follow the characteristics of a normal distribution. Therefore, the Amman Stock Exchange is inefficient at the weak-form level. Consequently, the lack of randomness in weekly stock closing price movements does not comply with the hypothesis of the first study. Likewise, the lack of independence of the changes in the current weekly stock closing prices from the previous ones also does not correspond to the hypothesis of the second study.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".