MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281629669 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15060240

Dynamic Causality Analysis of COVID-19 Pandemic Risk and Oil Market Changes

2022· article· en· W4281629669 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mike K. P. So, Jacky N.L. Chan, Amanda M. Y. Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicGranger causalityFutures contractProxy (statistics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconomicsPreparednessLagCausality (physics)Distributed lagEconometricsFinancial economicsBusinessMedicineStatisticsInternal medicineDiseaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crude oil draws attention in recent research as its demand may indicate world economic growth trend in the post-COVID-19 era. In this paper, we study the dynamic lead–lag relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and crude oil future prices. We perform rolling-sample tests to evidence whether two pandemic risk scores derived from network analysis, including a preparedness risk score and a severity risk score, Granger-cause changes in oil future prices. In our empirical analysis, we observe 49% to 60% of days in 2020 to 2021 during which the pandemic scores significantly affected oil futures. We also find an asymmetric lead–lag relationship, indicating that there is a tendency for oil futures to move significantly when the pandemic is less severe but not when it is more severe. This study adopts preparedness risk score and severity risk score as proxy variables to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic risk on oil market. The asymmetric lead–lag behavior between pandemic risk and oil future prices provides insights on oil demand and consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→