MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312058786 · doi:10.14505/tpref.v13.2(26).08

GENERALIZED FISHER HYPOTHESIS VALIDITY FOR CANADA, UK, AND SUISSE STOCK MARKETS: EVIDENCE FROM PANEL ARDL MODELS

2022· article· en· W4312058786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Malika Neifar, Fatma HACHICHA

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical and Practical Research in Economic Fields · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsStock marketStock (firearms)PortfolioUnivariateFinancial economicsFinancial crisisEconometricsMonetary economicsHedgeMultivariate statisticsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we propose a decision support tool for the investor in terms of asset allocation. The key question is to know whether equities are perfect hedge against inflation if either we invest in only one market or if we go to all the considered markets. We chose three democratic countries having common monetary policy based on the Inflation rate stabilization targeting (including Canada, UK, and Suisse) over the period 1999M01-2018M04. We see how the stock return evolution is related to inflation rate Pre, during, and Post 2008 Global financial crisis (GFC). Then, some dynamic version of the Generalized Fisher hypothesis (GFH) models are explored by some univariate and panel autoregressive dynamic linear (ARDL) frameworks. We conclude that during crisis period, being on either Suisse or Canadian stock market, investors can have important abnormal gains. Then including the UK in a portfolio allows investors to limit losses caused by inflation in the UK stock market alone.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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 score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.081 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical and Practical Research in Economic FieldsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207