MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316362576 · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2023.1103625

High-dimensional CoVaR risk spillover network from oil market to global stock markets—Lessons from the Kyoto Protocol

2023· article· en· W4316362576 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiliang Sheng, Juchao Li, Jun Yang, Yufan Wang, Jiayu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Environmental Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaAcadia University
KeywordsSpillover effectCrude oilStock marketStock (firearms)Downside riskKyoto ProtocolVariance decomposition of forecast errorsEconomicsCopula (linguistics)Financial economicsMarket riskEconometricsBusinessMonetary economicsClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the impact of the Kyoto Protocol by investigating the correlation and risk spillover between the crude oil market and the stock markets of 28 countries during its two commitment periods. Besides time-varying Copula-CoVaR models, the Adaptive Lasso-VAR model with oracle properties is employed in generalized variance decomposition, and a risk connectedness network is constructed to explore risk spillovers between the stock markets of various countries when the crude oil market is at risk. The results reveal positive correlations between the crude oil market and stock markets, which become weaker in the second commitment period than in the first. The crude oil market has both upside and downside spillover effects to most stock markets during both commitment periods, and the upside risk spillover effect is stronger than the downside effect. Overall, most non-signatories of the Kyoto Protocol are net receivers of risk spillovers when the crude oil market is at risk, while most signatories are net exporters of risk spillovers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Environmental ScienceSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207