How the effective reproductive number impacts global stock markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus COVID‐19 has impact the economies of countries across the world. In a short period of time, researchers have begun to analyse the effect of the pandemic on global stock markets. Although the most known measurements of COVID‐19 are the number of new cases and deaths, there are more robust indicators. In particular, the effective reproductive number is one of the most important indicators to analyse the pandemic which indicates the degree to which the spread is under control. In this paper, we assess the impact that the Effective Reproductive Number (Rt) has on 26 countries around the world (32 stock market indexes) comparing the performance of various forms of Generalized AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity models. The results demonstrate that of the 32 stock markets analysed, 37.5% had a negative effect with respect to Rt and only in 12.5% of the cases was the effect of the variation of Rt positive. This implies that in more than a third of the stock markets analysed as the pandemic progressed uncontrolled the result was a decrease in the value of the market index. The 11 of the 26 countries analysed had a negative and significant effect (Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, and United States). Findings suggest that the Effective Reproductive Number volatility had a significant impact on 10 of the 26 countries analysed (38.5%) (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Singapore and United Kingdom).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".