MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311960483 · doi:10.3390/ijfs10040113

Relationship between Stock Returns and Trading Volume at the Bourse Régionale des Valeurs Mobilières, West Africa

2022· article· en· W4311960483 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Pierre Gueyié, Mouhamadou Saliou Diallo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsAutoregressive modelAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityEconomicsStock (firearms)HeteroscedasticityStock market indexIndex (typography)Financial economicsStock marketComputer scienceVolatility (finance)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to study the contemporaneous relationship and the dynamic relationship between the stock index return and the trading volume on the Bourse Régionale des Valeurs Mobilières using daily data from 5 January 2015 to 31 October 2022. Estimations are made using the generalized method of moments (GMM) and generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity or GARCH (1,1) specifications for the contemporaneous regressions and the vector autoregressive specification for the dynamic (causal) relationship. The contemporaneous specifications show that there is no significant relationship between stock returns and trading volume. Neither of the two variables significantly influences the other. Furthermore, the dynamic specification shows a causality running from stock returns to trading volume but the reverse is not true. For the period covered by the study, the results invalidate both the mixture of distribution hypothesis and the sequential information arrival hypothesis and open the way for other considerations such as behavioral models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial StudiesSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207