MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101700822 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13110276

Will the Aviation Industry Have a Bright Future after the COVID-19 Outbreak? Evidence from Chinese Airport Shipping Sector

2020· article· en· W3101700822 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jingxuan Liu, Ping Qiao, Jian Ding, Luke Hankinson, Elodie H. Harriman, Edward M. Schiller, Ieva Ramanauskaite, Zhang Haowei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityAviationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BusinessStock (firearms)EconometricsFinancial economicsEconomicsFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the lockdown regulations worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, the global aviation industry has been severely hit. This study focuses on the volatility estimation of stock indexes in the Chinese Airport Shipping Set (ASS) at industry-enterprise levels and identifies possible business behavior that may cause fluctuating differences. Depending on the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model, text mining method and Word Cloud Views, results show that (1) the holistic volatility of Airport Shipping Set Index (ASSI) increases relative to the pre-COVID period; (2) volatility of airport stocks has crucial differences, while the volatility of shipping stocks is similar; (3) there are different responses to the pandemic between Shenzhen Airport and Shanghai Airport shown in their semiannual financial reports. Compared to the latter, the former had a more positive attitude and took various measures to mitigate risks, providing evidence of the volatility differences between firms.

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)0.002
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207