MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209995345 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14110514

Empirical Analysis of MSCI China A-Shares

2021· article· en· W3209995345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Li, Weiping Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityPortfolioIndex (typography)ChinaPerspective (graphical)Sample (material)Financial economicsInvestment (military)Empirical researchBusinessEconomicsForeign portfolio investmentEconometricsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsReturn on investmentStatisticsOpen-ended investment companyMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce the MSCI China A-shares index (MCASI) and analyze MCASI’s properties. From the perspective of index investment, we found that MCASI’s investor sentiments, both overnight sentiment and BW sentiment, provide significant predictability for future MCASI returns, supported by the in-sample and out-of-sample results. From the perspective of sector investment, we show that the sector portfolio of “information transfer, software and information technology services” performs the best among the 10 sector portfolios. In addition, seven approaches of the optimal portfolio in ten sectors are examined, and the results suggest that the classic Markowitz portfolio approach is recommended. Our empirical analysis is helpful for domestic and foreign investors seeking to form investment strategies for MSCI China A-shares.

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)0.004
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→