MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306403298 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100465

Price Stability Properties and Volatility Analysis of Precious Metals: An ICSS Algorithm Approach

2022· article· en· W4306403298 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sameen Fatima, Christopher Gan, Baiding Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecious metalVolatility (finance)Financial crisisEconomicsPortfolioDiversification (marketing strategy)Stock (firearms)Monetary economicsPlatinumStock marketPalladiumFinancial economicsMetalBusinessChemistryMacroeconomicsMetallurgyMaterials scienceCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the price stability properties of precious metals during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, 2007–2008 Global Financial Crisis, and 2010 Eurozone Crisis. To analyse the interaction between precious metal prices and the US stock market stock performances, we use the ICSS algorithm along with the GARCH model to evaluate how the number of rapid changes in volatility of precious metals has been reduced. The results suggest gold is the most stable of the precious metals. However, silver, platinum, and palladium showed positive price correlation when the US Dow Jones market was unstable. These results imply that: (1) the correlation among stocks market returns has little to no significant impact on the price movement of precious metals, but the US Dow Jones has some influence on precious metal markets except gold, which means investors can reap this benefit from diversification; (2) investors can systematically increase their portfolio returns by going short with the gold investments with low price co-movement and long on silver, platinum, and palladium with high co-movement with stock prices.

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)0.004
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 score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.204
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

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