On the Dynamic Changes in the Global Stock Markets’ Network during the Russia–Ukraine War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the relationships among global stock markets is crucial for international investors, regulators, and policymakers, particularly during a crisis. Complex network theory was applied to analyze the relationship between global stock markets during the Russia–Ukraine war. Daily data from 55 stock markets from 6 August 2021 to 23 September 2023 were retrieved and used to investigate the changes in global stock market networks. The sample period was divided into 22 subsamples, using a 100-day rolling window rolled forward a trading month, and then long-range correlations based on distance matrices were calculated. These distance matrices were utilized to construct stock market networks. Moreover, minimum spanning trees (MSTs) were extracted from these financial networks for analytical purposes. Based on topological and structural analysis, we identified important/central nodes, distinct communities, vulnerable/stable nodes, and changes thereof with the escalation of war. The empirical findings reveal that the Russia–Ukraine war impacted the global stock markets’ network. However, its intensity varied with changes in the region and the passage of time due to the level of stock market integration and stage of war escalation, respectively. Stock markets of France, Germany, Canada, and Austria remained the most centrally connected within communities; surprisingly, the USA’s stock market is not on this list.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".