MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225121870 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15050204

Stock Market Synchronization: The Role of Geopolitical Risk

2022· article· en· W4225121870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kazi Sohag, Rogneda Vasilyeva, Alina Urazbaeva, Valentin Voytenkov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIran National Science FoundationRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsSocial connectednessFinancial economicsQuantileStock marketEconomicsBivariate analysisStock market indexEquity (law)ChinaVolatility (finance)EconometricsBusinessStatisticsGeographyMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the importance of stock market synchronization for international portfolio diversification, we estimate the degrees of co-movements among US, Chinese and Russian markets. By applying the TVP-VAR approach, we measure total and bivariate synchronization indices utilizing daily data from 1998 to 2021. Our analysis demonstrates that the total connectedness index (TCI) is 26.15% among the three markets. We find that the US market is the highest volatility contributor, whereas the Russian market is the highest receiver. Since stock market synchronization is exposed to geopolitical risk, at the second stage, we apply the Quantile-on-Quantile framework to measure the response of total and bilateral connectedness indices to geopolitical risk (GPR). The findings affirm our proposition that GPR impedes TCI when it has a bullish state and a higher quantile of GPR. The response of bilateral connectedness is negative towards GPR concerning US–China and US–Russian pairs. However, the degree of connectedness between Russian and Chinese stock markets is less responsive to GPR.

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)0.002
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 score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207