MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307262304 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15110491

Dependencies and Volatility Spillovers among Chinese Stock and Crude Oil Future Markets: Evidence from Time-Varying Copula and BEKK-GARCH Models

2022· article· en· W4307262304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoling Yu, Kaitian Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWest Texas IntermediateSpillover effectCopula (linguistics)Crude oilFutures contractVolatility (finance)EconomicsStock (firearms)EconometricsStock marketBreakoutFinancial economicsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityTail dependenceGeographyMathematicsStatisticsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates co-movements among the Chinese stock market, Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) crude oil futures and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures. We use Copula models to capture tail dependencies and employ the VAR-BEKK-GARCH model to examine the direction of volatility spillovers. We find that there are positively time-varying dependency relationships among the three markets. Compared with the corresponding upper-tail dependencies, the lower-tail dependencies were larger before the COVID-19 pandemic while relatively weaker after the breakout of the pandemic. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was only a statistically significant volatility spillover from WTI crude oil future market to the INE crude oil future market. After the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were statistically significant volatility spillovers in the two pairs of markets, namely, the WTI–INE and Chinese stock–WTI. However, we only find statistically significant evidence of unidirectional volatility spillover from the Chinese crude oil future market to the Chinese stock market during the pandemic.

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)0.002
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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