MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413249417 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18080444

Dynamic Spillovers Among Green Bond Markets: The Impact of Investor Sentiment

2025· article· en· W4413249417 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Duong Thuy Le, Ariful Hoque, Thi Le

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpillover effectBondEconomicsVector autoregressionFinancial economicsBond marketPortfolioEconometricsMonetary economicsFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the dynamic spillover effects among green bond markets and the impact of investor sentiment on these spillovers. We employ different research methods, including a time-varying parameter vector autoregression, an exponential general autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity, and a generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity-mixed data sampling model. Our sample is for twelve international green bond markets from 3 January 2022 to 31 December 2024. Our results evidence the strong correlation between twelve green bond markets, with the United States and China being the net risk receivers and Sweden being the largest net shock transmitter. We also find the varied impact of direct and indirect investor sentiment on the net total directional spillovers. Our research offers fresh contributions to the existing literature in different ways. On the one hand, it adds to the green finance literature by clarifying the dynamic spillovers among leading international green bond markets. On the other hand, it extends behavioral finance research by including direct and indirect investor sentiment in the spillovers of domestic and foreign green bond markets. Our study is also significant to related stakeholders, including investors in their portfolio rebalancing and policymakers in stabilizing green bond markets.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207