MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387500771 · doi:10.15388/ekon.2023.102.2.8

Europe’s Energy Crisis; Winners of the Crisis with Market Data

2023· article· en· W4387500771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anıl Çağlar ERKAN, Samet Gürsoy, Mesut Doğan, Sevdie Alshiqi

Bibliographic record

VenueEkonomika · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsStructural breakCausality (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)Scope (computer science)EconomyEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prices of natural gas, coal, and electricity have risen to the highest level of the last ten years in the last quarter of 2021. It’s possible to express that energy prices in 2021 were much higher, compared to the crisis of 2020’s Covid-19 breakout’s historical descent in the first few months. There are a few factors to this rally. The epidemic caused structural fractions on a global scale. But in general, there is no doubt that crisis factors, which mainly concern Europe, are not limited (with) recovery process in the economy. With this notion, the main structure of this work’s subject aims to analyze the lead-up to the energy crisis that became apparent in 2021. Also, in the work, the energy crisis that’s been occurring will be analyzed thoroughly, with the help of its dynamics and causes. Within the scope of the study, the Hatemi-J (2012) asymmetric causality test was run using the weekly stock closing data of EU natural gas prices (EUGP), Gazprom (XGASPR), and Equinor (XEQUNR) for the period 05.11.2017–28.11.2021. As a result of the analysis, a causal relationship between the variables was determined. However, the work will positively contribute to the literature, being a guide to the current situations and overcoming the similar crisis that might occur in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEkonomikaSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207