MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312286093 · doi:10.4236/tel.2022.125077

Economic Instability in the Gulf Region: Insights from a Dual Shock

2022· article· en· W4312286093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Talal A. N. M. S. Alotaibi, Lucía Morales

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Economics Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShock (circulatory)PandemicStock (firearms)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconomicsPolitical instabilityQuarter (Canadian coin)Financial crisisDual (grammatical number)Financial marketFutures contractChinaMonetary economicsDevelopment economicsFinancial economicsGeographyMacroeconomicsPolitical scienceFinancePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused financial markets to suffer historic losses during the first quarter of 2020, at levels unseen since the crisis of the futures markets in 1987. The pandemic affected global markets parallel to a simultaneous shock from the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia. As the global health crisis worsened, governments worldwide were forced to take measures that led to economic lockdowns and significant economic disruptions. This research paper examines the extent to which the dual shock impacted the GCC economies due to the critical implications for the Gulf region because of its heavy reliance on oil. The core findings show that the dual shock caused significant disruption in the GCC stock exchanges, except for the case of Bahrain’s stock market, which emerged as relatively stable.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical Economics LettersSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207