MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403170636 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v16n10p82

The Effect of Political Risk on Financial Stability in MENA Region

2024· article· en· W4403170636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Myvel Nabil

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial stabilityPoliticsStability (learning theory)Political riskEconomicsPolitical stabilityFinancial systemPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the impact of political risk, represented by political index for each country, on the financial stability in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, which is divided into three groups according to the level of income during 2009-2021. Financial stability is measured by a Z-score and an aggregate banking stability index. This has been applied on 9 countries using panel data analysis. The findings reveal that political risk has a significant negative effect on financial stability partially, most notably on the Z-score side. Macroeconomic factors, including broad money, domestic credit to private sector by banks, GDP growth, income, and market capitalization of listed domestic companies, are also identified as determinants of financial stability. The study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of political risk on financial stability in MENA region over 13 years. Practical implications for regulators, policymakers and investors are discussed, highlighting the need for a better understanding of political, economic and health risks and their effect on stock performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207