MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159187188 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14050207

Effects of the 2008 Financial Crisis and COVID-19 Pandemic on the Dynamic Relationship between the Chinese and International Fossil Fuel Markets

2021· article· en· W3159187188 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chaofeng Tang, Kentaka Aruga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial crisisPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Fossil fuelEconomicsFinancial marketEmerging marketsFinancial systemBusinessFinanceMacroeconomicsInternal medicineBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines whether the dynamic relationship between the Chinese and international fossil markets changed during the 2008 financial crisis and is changing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the crises are analyzed by including the periods affected by the crises as dummy variables in the VAR and VECM models. Monthly data for the 2000:1–2020:12 period were used in the study. Our results suggest that the effects of the COVID-19 on the linkages between the Chinese and international fossil fuel markets are not as evident compared to the 2008 financial crisis. The study identifies that the effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic on the linkages are mostly driven by the impacts of these crises on the Chinese fossil fuel markets. The study indicates the importance of controlling the risk involved in the Chinese fossil fuel market when events like the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic are changing the linkages between the Chinese and international fossil fuel markets.

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)0.003
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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