MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205664283 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15010031

Time Evolution of Market Efficiency and Multifractality of the Japanese Stock Market

2022· article· en· W4205664283 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tetsuya Takaishi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceZengin Foundation For Studies On Economics And Finance
KeywordsStock exchangeHurst exponentStock (firearms)Stock marketFinancial economicsMultifractal systemEconomicsStock market indexFinancial marketIndex (typography)FractalFinanceGeographyMathematicsStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the time evolution of market efficiency in the Japanese stock markets, considering three indices: Tokyo Stock Price Index (TOPIX), Tokyo Stock Exchange Second Section Index, and TOPIX-Small. The Hurst exponent reveals that the Japanese markets are inefficient in their early stages and improve gradually. TOPIX and TOPIX-Small showed an anti-persistence around the year 2000, which still persists. The degree of multifractality varies over time and does not show that the Japanese markets are permanently efficient. The multifractal properties of the Japanese markets changed considerably around the year 2000; this may have been caused by the complete migration from the stock trading floor to the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s computer trading system and the financial system reform, also known as the “Japanese Big Bang”.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207