Bibliographic record
Abstract
Could we measure the impact of geopolitical shocks, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and COVID19. on shaping economic diplomacy and investor decisions? This is the question that runs through this study. We are attempting to highlight and identify the vital interconnections between the economy as reflected in the functioning of a state's stock market and the geopolitical risks it faces, attempting to draw useful conclusions for economic diplomacy. The economic analysis of geopolitical risks and its integration into the economic policy framework is a major concern of the current scientific research and therein lies the value of the present study. By statistically exploiting data from 2000 for the countries facing strong geopolitical risks: the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa), MENA (Middle East & North Africa countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates & Yemen) and SAHEL (four countries bordering Lake Chad - Cameroon, Chad, Niger, Nigeria – as well as Burkina Faso, The Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal), but also for the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, & the US, as well as the European Union) due to their involvement in geopolitical crises (either through peacekeeping missions and development aid or by sending military equipment), it is possible to analyse the effects of geopolitical risks on the functioning of their economies, as reflected in stock market fluctuations. The conclusions are twofold: they feed the information "arsenal" for shaping economic diplomacy, and at the same time help investors to protect themselves from geopolitical risks by diversifying their investment portfolio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".