Dynamic Connectedness between Bitcoin, Gold, and Crude Oil Volatilities and Returns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the connectedness among bitcoin, gold, and crude oil between 3 January 2017 and 31 December 2019. The paper’s motivation is based upon the idea that bitcoin can be similar to gold in terms of its hedging properties and can be used for hedging for different assets. Moreover, although it is more metaphorical, bitcoin is also accepted because it is mined like crude oil, namely, a commodity. These similarities can be investigated by analyzing the connectedness among these financial assets. The connectedness results derived from both total connectedness and frequency connectedness methods indicate that volatility connectedness is higher than the return connectedness among these assets. Furthermore, connectedness in volatilities is mostly driven by medium frequency, although connectedness in returns mostly exists in high frequency. Therefore, these results suggest that investors should consider these financial assets for their diversification decisions. The results suggest that although diversification among these three assets is more difficult in the short- and medium-term, investors may benefit from diversification in the long-run.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".