MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121423309 · doi:10.17578/5-3-3

An Analysis of the Dynamic Relationships Between the South African Equity Market and Major World Equity Markets

2001· article· en· W3121423309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asjeet S. Lamba, Isaac Otchere

Bibliographic record

VenueMultinational Finance Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationEquity (law)EconomicsError correction modelSample (material)Development economicsEconometricsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides the first comprehensive analysis of the dynamic relationships between the South African and major world equity markets during May 1988 - May 2000. Using a multivariate cointegration framework and vector error-correction modeling the results indicate that there is a long-run relationship between the South African market and major developed markets. Over the full sample period, the US, Canada and Australia exert the most influence on South Africa, while the influence of Japan is minimal. The subperiod analysis shows that, during the Apartheid period, a long-run equilibrium relationship between South Africa and the major developed markets did not exist. In contrast, during the post-Apartheid period, the long-run relationship has become strong and statistically significant for all the major developed markets, except Japan. Overall, the results imply that South Africa is now much more economically and financially integrated with major developed markets, and that the removal of Apartheid has played a significant role in this process

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)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultinational Finance JournalSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207