Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Financial Market Efficiency of Price Returns, Absolute Returns, and Volatility Increment: Evidence from Stock and Cryptocurrency Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on market efficiency by analyzing three time series—price returns, absolute returns, and volatility increments—in the stock (Deutscher Aktienindex, Nikkei 225, Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE), and Volatility Index) and cryptocurrency (Bitcoin and Ethereum) markets. The effect is found to vary by asset class and market. In the stock market, while the pandemic did not influence the Hurst exponent of volatility increments, it affected that of returns and absolute returns (except in the SSE, where returns remained unaffected). In the cryptocurrency market, the pandemic did not alter the Hurst exponent for any time series but influenced the strength of multifractality in returns and absolute returns. Some Hurst exponent time series exhibited a gradual decline over time, complicating the assessment of pandemic-related effects. Consequently, segmented analyses by pandemic period may erroneously suggest an impact, warranting caution in period-based studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".