MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195493629 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14080389

COVID-19 and Islamic Stock Index: Evidence of Market Behavior and Volatility Persistence

2021· article· en· W3195493629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adil Saleem, Judit Bárczi, Judit Sági

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSzegedi TudományegyetemTempus Közalapítvány
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Stock marketIslamStock market indexFinancial economicsEconomicsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityStock (firearms)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicEconometricsMonetary economicsInternal medicineGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic is not limited to human lives and health sectors. It has also changed social and economic aspects of the world. This study investigated the Islamic stock market’s reaction and changes in volatility before and during this pandemic. The market model of event study methodology was employed to analyze Islamic stock market reactions in nine different markets around the globe. To examine changes in volatility and persistence of risk, the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) method was used. Nine Islamic stock indices were selected for this study from the Thomson Reuters data stream. The results suggest that, in the short run, the Islamic Australian stock index and Islamic GCC stock index remained stable for the first 15 days following news of the pandemic. The Islamic stock indexes of Qatar, UAE, ASEAN, MENA, MENASA, and Bahrain were significantly affected by the outbreak in the short-term. On the other hand, the volatility of Islamic stock indices was substantially amplified after the global health crisis was declared by the WHO. Moreover, volatility shocks tended to persist for a longer period after COVID-19.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207