MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116180724 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14010012

COVID-19 Outbreak and CO2 Emissions: Macro-Financial Linkages

2020· article· en· W3116180724 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julien Chevallier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Greenhouse gasVolatility (finance)MacroOutbreakStock (firearms)Financial crisisEconometricsEconomics2019-20 coronavirus outbreakBusinessEnvironmental scienceGeographyMacroeconomicsComputer scienceMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Dynamic Conditional Correlation with Mixed Data Sampling (DCC-MIDAS) framework, we scrutinize the correlations between the macro-financial environment and CO2 emissions in the aftermath of the COVID-19 diffusion. The main original idea is that the economy’s lock-down will alleviate part of the greenhouse gases’ burden that human activity induces on the environment. We capture the time-varying correlations between U.S. COVID-19 confirmed cases, deaths, and recovered cases that were recorded by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Center, on the one hand; U.S. Total Industrial Production Index and Total Fossil Fuels CO2 emissions from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on the other hand. High-frequency data for U.S. stock markets are included with five-minute realized volatility from the Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance. The DCC-MIDAS approach indicates that COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths negatively influence the macro-financial variables and CO2 emissions. We quantify the time-varying correlations of CO2 emissions with either COVID-19 confirmed cases or COVID-19 deaths to sharply decrease by −15% to −30%. The main takeaway is that we track correlations and reveal a recessionary outlook against the background of the pandemic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207