Bitcoin's Economic Relationships: Insights from a 10-Year Correlation Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the correlation of the price of Bitcoin to eight other key market indicators for the period January 2014 to July 2024. The study's objectives were to determine which indicators had the highest correlation to the price of bitcoin and whether the correlation changed over this period. If there was a change in correlation over this time, the study will attempt to determine the causation of the change. The nine key economic indicators reviewed for correlation to Bitcoin price are (1) the price of gold, (2) Consumer Confidence Index (CCI), (3) US dollar, (4) NYSE Composite Index, (5) NASDAQ Composite Index, (6) Nikkei 255 Index, (7) Hang Seng Index, and (8) the FTSE index. The conclusion of the paper regarding the price of Bitcoin during our study period is that: There was a strong positive correlation with stock exchange indices that were increasing during the period analyzed. A positive relationship also existed with the price of gold over the entire study period; however, it was statistically lower during the 5-year sub-periods analyzed. There was no statistically justified relationship between the price of Bitcoin and the CCI, US Dollar Index or any of the stock indices that had declined during the study period.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it