MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297323824 · doi:10.32479/ijeep.13373

Relationship Between Geopolitical Risk In Major Oil Producing Countries and Oil Price

2022· article· en· W4297323824 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tin Hei Alpha Yuen, Thomas Wai Kee Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Energy Economics and Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsGranger causalityFinancial crisisChinaEconomicsOil priceIndex (typography)Ordinary least squaresFinancial economicsEconomyMonetary economicsInternational economicsEconometricsMacroeconomicsGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Energy Economics and PolicySame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207