MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413309818 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18080460

Sectoral Contributions to Financial Market Resilience: Evidence from GCC Countries

2025· article· en· W4413309818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khaled O. Alotaibi, Mohammed A. Al-Shurafa, Meshari Al-Daihani, Mohamed Bouteraa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Financial systemFinancial marketBusinessEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the contributions of five key sectors—insurance, materials, utilities, real estate, and transport—to the financial markets of six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries from 2004 to 2023. Grounded in the Sectoral Linkage Theory and Endogenous Growth Theory, the study employs a Panel Autoregressive Distributed Lag (Panel ARDL) model to examine both short-term and long-term sectoral impacts on financial market resilience. The findings reveal that the insurance and transport sectors offer short-term market stimulation, but lack persistent effects. Conversely, the materials, utilities, and real estate sectors exhibit strong, long-run contributions to financial stability and economic diversification. These results highlight the asymmetric impact of sectoral dynamics on market performance in resource-rich contexts. This research contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on sectoral interdependence in oil-dependent economies and highlights the importance of structural diversification for sustainable financial resilience. The study provides actionable insights for policymakers and investors seeking to enhance market resilience and reduce reliance on hydrocarbon revenues through targeted sectoral development.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207