Relationship Between Geopolitical Risk In Major Oil Producing Countries and Oil Price
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has applied Granger causality tests and dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) models to examine the relationship between geopolitical risk in major oil-producing countries and the crude oil price before and after the 2008 financial crisis. The granger causality tests show that the geopolitical risk of Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United States and China granger cause changes in crude oil prices. The DOLS models show that the series in the model are cointegrated. The coefficients for the geopolitical index of Canada, Russia and China are significant before the 2008 financial crisis sample period. However, the DOLS model shows that the coefficients for all geopolitical indexes are insignificant after the 2008 financial crisis sample period. The general public and investors generally precept major oil exporters like Russia and Saudi Arabia as the major players in the oil market. However, after the 2008 financial crisis, the discrepancy in the economic needs of the major oil-producing countries has reduced their ability to co-operate crude oil prices. This study also discovered that China plays a significant role in the oil market.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".