Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of the present paper is to explore how the interactions between crude oil (CO) price changes and stock returns of five developed countries namely U.S.A, Canada, Germany, Japan and U.K., evolve simultaneously over time and frequency, in light of the conflicting evidence provided by much of recent studies on the sign and the direction of this relationship. To this end, we apply a more efficient wavelet tool, namely Haar à trous wavelet transform that helps circumvent the problems of the standard regression techniques and proves its effectiveness in encircling the real data features. In order to provide more credible conclusions, the wavelet variance, correlation and cross-correlation are implemented. In general, we extend the existing empirical works by providing more generalized and convincing results inherent to the stock-oil markets interactions which are usually reputed to be complicated. First, we find evidence that the wavelet variances of all the variables decrease with increasing scales. Second, from the analysis of the wavelet correlation, changes in CO and almost all the stock prices do not move together up to the intermediate scale, but since they abruptly shift their direction in unison. Third, results for the wavelet CCF at scales 2, 3 and/or 4 generally illustrate no transmission mechanism between CO and the stock market returns although we provide support for massive CO variations at these scales. In contrast, the CO-equity market relationships at higher scales become interconnected in a negative unidirectional pattern running from CO to stock market returns for only two oil importing countries but also Canada. For oil exporting countries, we have seen that while highly transient (scale 1) positive/negative causalities flowing from TSX stock market to CO changes are detected, highly persistent (scale 6) positive causality running from FTSE to the CO changes are rather found. Finally, the implications of the study's results vary depending on the oil – stock market linkages' sensitivity to the degree of improvement in energy efficiency of a given country, the degree of oil shock persistence, and to whether a country is oil importer or exporter (among other suggested factors).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".