MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366769097 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v15n5p86

Measuring Volatility Persistence and Asymmetric Effects Around Index Rebalancing of Nifty Indices

2023· article· en· W4366769097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eshan Ahluwalia, Trilochan Tripathy, Ajay Kumar Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconometricsStock exchangeIndex (typography)EconomicsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityFinancial economicsStock (firearms)Composite indexStock market indexBenchmark (surveying)Monetary economicsFinanceComputer scienceBiologyStock marketGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the time-varying volatility behavior of the stocks that are added to or deleted from the major indices (Nifty 50 and Nifty Next 50) of the National Stock Exchange of India around the event of index rebalancing. The best fit asymmetric panel GJR-GARCH model estimates suggest that volatility persistence is relatively higher for the stocks added to a prominent benchmark index compared to the stocks deleted from such an index. On the contrary, the stocks deleted from a prominent benchmark index are exposed to a higher degree of volatility asymmetry than the stocks added. Our findings have implications on traders, asset managers, exchange managers, regulators and analysts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→