MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281753472 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15060260

Impact of Negative Tweets on Diverse Assets during Stressful Events: An Investigation through Time-Varying Connectedness

2022· article· en· W4281753472 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. L. Balasudarsun, Bikramaditya Ghosh, Sathish Mahendran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial connectednessAsset (computer security)Shock (circulatory)BrexitPsychologyReferendumMonetary economicsEconomicsSocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicineEuropean union

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tweets seem to impact diverse assets, especially during stressful periods. However, their interrelations during stressful events may change. Cryptos are apparently more sensitive to the sentiment spread by tweets. Therefore, a construct could be formed to study such complex interrelation during stressful events. This study found an interesting outcome while investigating three major asset classes (namely, Equity, Gold and Bond) alongside negative sentiment (derived from tweets of Elon Musk) and Dogecoin (an emerging asset class) from 1 June 2015 to 20 February 2022. Negative sentiment emerged as the significant risk transmitter, while Gold emerged as the significant net recipient of shocks (risk). Interestingly, Dogecoin was found to be less impacted and not impactful (not transmitting shock and receiving tiny shocks) at the same time. In fact, the interconnectedness between negative sentiment (percolated through Twitter) and Dogecoin prices was found to be rather feeble. Further, the study showed that the COVID-19 breakout and Brexit referendum in 2016 were less stressful events compared to the Greek debt crisis back in 2015.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
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 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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