Transformation of the Ukrainian Stock Market: A Data Properties View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the evolution of the Ukrainian stock market through an analysis of various data properties, including persistence, volatility, normality, and resistance to anomalies for the case of daily returns from the PFTS stock index spanning 1995–2022. Segmented into sub-periods, it aims to test the hypothesis that the market’s efficiency has increased over time. To do this different statistical techniques and methods are used, including R/S analysis, ANOVA analysis, regression analysis with dummy variables, t-tests, and others. The findings present a mixed picture: while volatility and persistence demonstrate a general decreasing trend, indicating a potential shift towards a more efficient market, normality tests reveal no discernible differences between analyzed periods. Similarly, the analysis of anomalies shows no specific trends in the market’s resilience to the day-of-the-week effect. Overall, the results suggest a lack of systematic changes in data properties in the Ukrainian stock market over time, possibly due to the country’s volatile conditions, including two revolutions, economic crises, the annexation of territories, and a Russian invasion leading to the largest war in Europe since WWII. The limited impact of reforms and changes justifies the need for continued market reform and evolution post-war.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".