MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293226250 · doi:10.1002/for.2903

A tug of war of forecasting the US stock market volatility: Oil futures overnight versus intraday information

2022· article· en· W4293226250 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forecasting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconomicsFutures contractEconometricsStock marketLeverage effectFutures marketFinancial economicsStock (firearms)Oil priceLeverage (statistics)Monetary economicsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study is the first to examine the impacts of overnight and intraday oil futures cross‐market information on predicting the US stock market volatility the high‐frequency data. In‐sample estimations present that high overnight oil futures RV can lead to high RV of the S&P 500. Moreover, negative overnight returns are more powerful than positive components, implying the existence of the leverage effect. From statistical and economic perspectives, out‐of‐sample results indicate that the decompositions of overnight oil futures and intraday RVs, based on signed intraday returns, can significantly increase the models' predictive ability. Finally, when considering the US stock market overnight effect, the decompositions are still useful to predict volatility, especially during high US stock market fluctuations and high and low EPU states.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.177 · 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