Middle East conflict and energy companies: The effect of air and drone strikes on global energy stocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• We analyse the impact of recent Israel-Iran conflict on global energy markets employing event study methodology. • Considering the April 13, 2024 as an event, the top ten global energy stocks are used. Due to the non-trading day of April 13, 2024, we use the stock price of April 15, 2024 as the event date for the comprehensive analysis. • The result reveals that BP PLC stock bore the brunt of the impact with the most substantial negative abnormal return (−2.26%), followed by EOG Resources (−2.20%) and Canadian Natural Resources (−2.12%). • Additionally, both pre and post event-pushed examined stocks underscore the pervasive uncertainty surrounding the conflict. The recent April 2024 Israel-Iran conflict had a notable impact on global energy markets. Returns on the top ten global energy stocks indicate investor apprehension up to 10 days before the event started on April 13, 2024. Energy stocks had significant negative returns on the event day itself, with positive CAARs pre-event and negative CAARs post-event. The dynamic market response highlights the heightened uncertainty for energy firms due to regional instability and potential supply chain interruptions, emphasizing the critical role of geopolitical events in shaping investor sentiment and the financial performance of energy firms.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".