MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408458966 · doi:10.3390/fractalfract9030176

Analysis of Self-Similarity in Short and Long Movements of Crude Oil Prices by Combination of Stationary Wavelet Transform and Range-Scale Analysis: Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Russia-Ukraine War

2025· article· en· W4408458966 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Lahmiri

Bibliographic record

VenueFractal and Fractional · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicWavelet transformSelf-similarityRange (aeronautics)Similarity (geometry)Scale analysis (mathematics)WaveletEconometricsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringCartographyMedicineMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the self-similarity (long memory) in prices of crude oil markets, namely Brent and West Texas Instruments (WTI), by means of fractals. Specifically, price series are decomposed by stationary wavelet transform (SWT) to obtain their short and long oscillations. Then, the Hurst exponent is estimated from each resulting oscillation by rescaled analysis (R/S) to represent hidden fractals in the original price series. The analysis is performed during three periods: the calm period (before the COVID-19 pandemic), the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russia-Ukraine war. In summary, prices of Brent and WTI exhibited significant increases in persistence in long movements during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war. In addition, they showed a significant increase in anti-persistence in short movements during the pandemic and a significant decrease in anti-persistence during the Russia-Ukraine war. It is concluded that both COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine war significantly affected long memory in the short and long movements of Brent and WTI prices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFractal and FractionalSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207