MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123834872 · doi:10.3390/jrfm2010038

China’s Stock Market Integration with a Leading Power and a Close Neighbor

2009· article· en· W3123834872 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yi Zheng, Heng Chen, Wing‐Keung Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaStock marketStock (firearms)BusinessEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current integration and co-movement among international stock markets has been boosted by increased globalization of the world economy, and profit-chasing capital surfing across borders. With a reputation as the fastest growing economy in the world, China’s stock market has continued gaining momentum during recent years and incurred growing attention from academicians, as well as practitioners. Taking into account economic and geographical considerations, the US and Hong Kong are considerably the most comparable stock markets to China. The usual vector error correction model (VECM) could overlook the long memory feature of cointegration residual series, which can in turn exert bias on the resulting inferences. To overcome its limitations, we employ a fractionally integrated VECM (FIVECM) in this paper to investigate the long-term cointegration relations binding China’s stock market to the aforementioned stock markets. In addition, by augmenting the FIVECM with multivariate GARCH model, the return transmission and volatility spillover between market return series were revealed simultaneously. Our empirical results show that China’s stock market is fractionally cointegrated with the two markets, and it appears that China’s stock market has stronger ties with its neighboring Hong Kong market than with the world superpower, the US market.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207