Price Gaps and Volatility: Do Weekend Gaps Tend to Close?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates weekend price gaps in three major stock market indices—the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), NASDAQ, and Germany’s DAX—from 2013 to 2023, using high-frequency (5 min) data to explore whether gap movements arise from random volatility or reflect systematic market tendencies. We examine 205 weekend gaps in the DJIA, 270 in NASDAQ, and 406 in the DAX. Two principal hypotheses guide our inquiry as follows: (i) whether price movements into the gap are primarily driven by increased volatility and (ii) whether larger gaps are associated with heightened volatility. Employing Chi-square tests for the independence and linear regression analyses, our results show no strong, universal bias towards closing gaps at shorter distances across all three indices. However, at medium-to-large distances, significant directional patterns emerge, particularly in the DAX. This outcome challenges the assumption that weekend gaps necessarily “fill” soon after they open. Moreover, larger gap sizes correlate with elevated volatility in both the DJIA and NASDAQ, underscoring that gaps can serve as leading indicators of near-term price fluctuations. These findings suggest that gap-based anomalies vary by market structure and geography, raising critical questions about the universality of efficient market principles and offering practical insights for risk management and gap-oriented trading strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".