MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160330878 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14050223

Short-Term Capital Flows, Exchange Rate Expectation and Currency Internationalization: Evidence from China

2021· article· en· W3160330878 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mingming Li, Fengming Qin, Zhaoyong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenminbiExchange rateInternationalizationCurrencyMonetary economicsCapital accountEconomicsInternational economicsCapital (architecture)PortfolioBusinessFinancial economicsInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper intended to employ a portfolio approach to assess the effect of exchange rate expectation on Chinese RMB internationalization and empirically test the interactive effects among short-term capital flows, RMB appreciation expectation and the internationalization process using a VAR model with monthly data ranging from February 2004 to December 2020. The results suggest that RMB exchange rate appreciation could lead to an increase in the foreign demand for RMB and RMB denominated assets, while RMB internationalization would attract more short-term capital inflow due to the reduced transaction costs. The empirical evidence from the VAR model estimation confirms the finding that expected RMB appreciation induces short-term capital inflow and promotes RMB internationalization. The robustness checks confirm the evidence. The results have important policy implication for RMB internationalization and for maintaining a sound and stable financial system.

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)0.002
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207