MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377289546 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16050280

Precious Metals Comovements in Turbulent Times: COVID-19 and the Ukrainian Conflict

2023· article· en· W4377289546 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonis A. Michis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Stock (firearms)Precious metalCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconometricsEconomicsFinancial economicsMonetary economicsMetalInternal medicineGeographyMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the evolution of cross-market linkages between four major precious metals and US stock returns, before (Phase I) and after (Phase II) the COVID-19 outbreak. Phase II was also extended to encompass the Ukrainian conflict, which prolonged the period of uncertainty in financial markets. Due to the increase in volatility observed in Phase II, we used a heteroskedasticity-adjusted correlation coefficient to examine the evolution of correlation changes since the COVID-19 outbreak. We also propose a relevant dissimilarity measure in multidimensional scaling analysis that can be used for depicting associations between financial returns in turbulent times. Our results suggest that (i) the correlation levels of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium returns with US stock returns have not changed substantially since the COVID-19 outbreak, and (ii) all precious metal returns exhibit movements that are less synchronized with US stock returns, with palladium and gold being the least synchronized.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207