MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413128110 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18080450

Detecting Structural Changes in Bitcoin, Altcoins, and the S&P 500 Using the GSADF Test: A Comparative Analysis of 2024 Trends

2025· article· en· W4413128110 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Yamaguchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIntel Corporation
KeywordsTest (biology)EconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding structural regime shifts in crypto asset markets is vital for early detection of systemic risk. This study applies the Generalized Sup Augmented Dickey–Fuller (GSADF) test to daily high-frequency price data of five major crypto assets—BTC, ETH, SOL, AAVE, and BCH—from 2023 to 2025. The results reveal asset-specific structural breaks: BTC and BCH aligned with macroeconomic shocks, while DeFi tokens (e.g., AAVE, SOL) exhibited fragmented, project-driven shifts. The S&P 500 index, in contrast, showed no persistent regime shifts, indicating greater structural stability. To examine inter-asset linkages, we construct co-occurrence matrices based on GSADF breakpoints. These reveal strong co-explosivity between BTC and other assets, and unexpectedly weak synchronization between ETH and AAVE, underscoring the sectoral idiosyncrasies of DeFi tokens. While the GSADF test remains central to our analysis, we also employ a Markov Switching Model (MSM) as a secondary tool to capture short-term volatility clustering. Together, these methods provide a layered view of long- and short-term market dynamics. This study highlights crypto markets’ structural heterogeneity and proposes scalable computational frameworks for real-time monitoring of explosive behavior.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207