Portfolio Diversification, Hedge and Safe-Haven Properties in Cryptocurrency Investments and Financial Economics: A Systematic Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study collected and synthetized the existing knowledge on portfolio diversification, hedge, and safe-haven properties in cryptocurrency investments. We sampled 146 studies published in journals ranked in the Association of Business Schools 2021 journals list, considering all fields of knowledge, and elaborated a systematic literature review along with a bibliometric analysis. Our results indicate a fast-growing literature evidencing cryptocurrencies’ ability to hedge against stocks, fiat currencies, geopolitical risks, and Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) risk; also, that cryptocurrencies present diversification and safe-haven properties; that stablecoins reveal unstable peg with the US dollar; that uncertainty is a determinant for cryptocurrency returns. Additionally, we show that investors should consider Gold, along with the European carbon market, CBOE Bitcoin futures, and crude oil to hedge against unexpected movements in the cryptocurrency 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it