The causality relationship between energy prices and developed countries indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to determine the causality relationship between energy prices, which are among the most important inputs of the economy, and selected stock market indices of developed countries. Crude oil and natural gas are used as energy variables. G7 countries were selected to represent developed countries. Stock indices used in the study are Dow & Jones (USA), DAX (Germany), CAC40 (France), FTSE250 (England), FTSE Italia All Share (Italy), NIKKEI225 (Japan), and S&P/TSX (Canada). In the study, Johansen (1988) cointegration test and Granger (1969) causality test were used to analyse the causality relationship between energy prices and selected stock market indices. The research could not find a long-term balance relationship between energy prices and developed country indices. Also, while the causality relationship was determined between crude oil prices and NIKKEI225, DAX, and CAC40 indices, a causal relationship between natural gas prices and Dow & Jones and FTSE250 indices was determined. In the study, it was found that energy prices can be used for diversification in investments to be made with stock market indices of developed countries. This study is one of the most comprehensive studies in the literature that examines the relationship between energy prices and the stock market indices of G7 countries. It is expected to contribute to the literature in this way.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".