MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211214583 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15020073

Effects of Real Exchange Rate Volatility on Trade: Empirical Analysis of the United States Exports to BRICS

2022· article· en· W4211214583 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. M. Ekanayake, Amila Dissanayake

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsCointegrationEconometricsVolatility (finance)Exchange rateAutoregressive modelDistributed lagEffective exchange ratePanel dataMonetary economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the effects of real exchange rate volatility on the United States’ exports to BRICS. It focuses on the top 20 export products (defined by the 2-digit Harmonized System codes) from the United States to Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and uses quarterly data for period from 1993Q1 to 2021Q2. The specified panel regression model was first estimated using three estimation methods, namely, the Panel Least Squares, the Panel Fully Modified Least Squares (FMOLS), and Panel Dynamic Least Squares (DOLS). In addition, to estimate the short-run and long-run effects of real exchange rate volatility on exports, it also uses the method of the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) approach to cointegration analysis and error-correction models. Two measures of exchange rate volatility are used in this study. According to our findings, the levels of foreign economic activity have a positive effect on exports while the real exchange rate has a negative effect on exports. In addition, exchange rate volatility has a negative effect on exports in the long run in all five countries. However, the effects of exchange volatility are found to yield mixed results in the short run regardless of which measure of exchange rate volatility was used.

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)0.000
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207