MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401646991 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17080365

Volatility Spillovers among the Major Commodities: A Review

2024· review· en· W4401646991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Konstantinos D. Melas, Anastasia Faitatzoglou, Nektarios A. Michail, Anastasia Artemiou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)SustenanceSpillover effectEconomicsAgricultureStock (firearms)CommodityFinancializationFinancial economicsIndustrial organizationMacroeconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of commodities into stock exchanges marked a pivotal moment in the analysis of price dynamics. Commodities are essential for both daily sustenance and industrial processes and are separated into hard commodities, like metals, and soft commodities, such as agricultural produce. This paper provides a review of the relevant literature concerning the implications of commodity price volatility on commercial and financial landscapes, recognizing its profound impact on global economies. Drawing from Google Scholar and Science Direct, we analyze trends in academic publications until 2022, particularly focusing on the interplay between volatility spillover and ten different commodities, providing insights into the evolution of research paradigms over time. In a nutshell, the literature suggests that relationships between hard commodities are stronger since, in addition to being raw materials, they also serve as investment products. For the same reason, relationships between agricultural products appear to be relatively weaker.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207