MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389054318 · doi:10.38193/ijrcms.2023.5502

EXCHANGE RATE FORECASTING: THE FUNDAMENTAL FORECASTING MODEL

2023· article· en· W4389054318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ioannis N. Kallianiotis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research In Commerce and Management Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsExchange rateEconomicsEconometricsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityMean squared errorVolatility (finance)Error correction modelFinancial economicsMacroeconomicsStatisticsMathematicsCointegration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is using the fundamental forecasting model, which is a monetarist theory of exchange rate determination, for the current forecasting. This theory is tested empirically by using data, spot and forward rates and a variety of macro-variables from seven different countries with respect the U.S., as our domestic country. A GARCH-M model is used to forecast the volatility of the spot exchange rate. The paper is also using a Vector Auto-regression (VAR) framework to forecast simultaneously spot (s_t) and forward (f_t) exchange rates by utilizing exogenous macro-variables, time trends, and policy instruments. Further, at the end an impulse response function and a Hodrick-Prescott filter are used to present visually the behavior of the spot exchange rate. The countries used in the empirical work are, U.S. with respect the Euro-zone, Mexico, Canada, U.K., Switzerland, Japan, and Australia. The results show that these methods are giving very good forecasting for these seven exchange rates by minimizing the standard error of the regression (SER) and the root mean squared error (RMSE). Of course, uncertainty exists always in the forecasting of any economic variables, due to unanticipated public policies (monetary, fiscal, and trade) and other “innovations” in our financial markets, plus the new philosophies (i.e., liberalism, lack of ethics, perversions, DEI, AI, wars, BRICS, etc.), official measurements, and value system in our markets, societies, and way of living.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.653
GPT teacher head0.433
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 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 Research In Commerce and Management StudiesSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207