Can Cryptocurrencies be a Safe Haven During the 2022 Ukraine Crisis? Implications for G7 Investors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attempts to assess the hedging, diversification and safe haven characteristics of gold, Bitcoin and Tether for G7 investors during the political and health crises. For this end, we use the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity-A-Dynamic Conditional Correlation model. The findings prove that gold can be considered as a strong safe haven asset for the G7 investors during the Russia–Ukraine crisis. In contrast, cryptocurrencies fail to retain their safe haven features for Japanese investors during the COVID-19 pandemic. But, they act as diversifier assets for the rest of the G7 stock markets. The computed optimal hedge and hedging effectiveness reveal that Bitcoin displays the best hedging instrument for the United States, British, Japanese and Canadian investors during the Russia–Ukraine crisis whereas gold is considered as the best instrument for German, French and Italian investors.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it