Analysing portfolio diversification opportunities in selected stock markets of North and South America and their impact on the textile sector: An empirical case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This empirical study investigates the financial integration linkages among the sample stock markets of Canada, Mexico,United States (for both New York Stock Exchange, i.e. NYSE and NASDAQ), Panama, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Venezuela,Jamaica, Trinidad, and Tobago during the period from January 2001 to April 2019. This research study also examinesthe impact of selected stock market dynamics on the textile sector. International portfolio diversification has been animportant subject of research in financial fraternity since the emergence of Modern Portfolio Theory in 1952. This studyexamines the portfolio diversification opportunities in the 11 stock markets of Americas.International diversificationamong stock market indices has proven to be fruitful in the past. Certain tests have been used to determine opportunitiesfor diversification are correlation test, pairwise co-integration test, multiple co-integration test and granger causality test.The empirical results show that stock market indices share low correlation among other and they are not highlyco-integrated whereas results of Granger causality test exhibit an unidirectional relationship among few stock marketsin short run.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".