MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391593266 · doi:10.32920/25169576

Does Spatial Autocorrelation Hold for the Stock Market Application to the NASDAQ Composite Index

2024· preprint· en· W4391593266 on OpenAlexafffund
Thushal Karunamuni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerUniversity of PennsylvaniaNational Ethnic Affairs Commission of the People's Republic of ChinaRevanceQuillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State UniversityRoyal College of Physicians of IrelandSarepta TherapeuticsSlovak Academic Information Agency
KeywordsSpatial analysisStock (firearms)AutocorrelationIndex (typography)Stock marketComposite indexEconomicsFinancial economicsGeographyEconometricsEconomic geographyBusinessStatisticsComposite indicatorMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the spatial distribution of companies listed in the NASDAQ Composite Index from 2010 to 2019. The aim of this study is to understand how Tobler's First Law of Geography is reflected on the spatial pattern of headquarters of companies where their stock prices increased or decreased. The first research question is (1) if there is clustering of publicly traded companies (headquarters) associated with growth stocks and publicly traded companies associated with non-growth stocks in the mainland US. The second research question is (2) where are hotspots located in the US on a State-level? The values of daily mean change in closing price that was greater than 0 was considered a growth stock and a value less than 0 was considered a non-growth stock for this research. A test for spatial autocorrelation (Global Moran's I) was done using R, and local spatial autocorrelation (Getis Ord Gi*) was conducted to find hot spots using R with a distance threshold of 2000 km. Of 1496 stocks, 1028 stocks grew while 468 did not. The Global Moran's I for growth stocks is -0.0016 and 0.0001 in non-growth stocks. In addition, at a 2000 km threshold, California is the only hot spot in the US. Therefore, there was no spatial autocorrelation of publicly traded companies from 2010 to 2019. Spatial Autocorrelation in this study for the 1496 stocks has provided evidence that there is randomness of company locations in relation to the stock performance. The NASDAQ is a formidable marker of stock performance from 2010 to 2019 and location of the company relative to the stock is not an influence of how well the stock performs. Therefore, this study delivers empirical evidence based on the NASDAQ to confirm Tobler's second law of geography. Another possible theorization is that artificial features in space may not be related to one another either nearer or more distant and further research on man-made phenomena could be studied in future research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207