MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414086896 · doi:10.1186/s43093-025-00636-1

Dynamic interdependence of major currencies and the US dollar: a wavelet coherence approach

2025· article· en· W4414086896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samuel Kwaku Agyei, Peterson Owusu, Anthony Adu‐Asare Idun, Patrick Kwashie Akorsu, Michael Provide Fumey

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Business Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarCurrencyReserve currencyInterdependenceUs dollarCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Pound (networking)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This research employs a wavelet coherence technique to analyze the dynamic inter-connectedness between the US dollar and five major global currencies: Japanese Yen, Canadian Dollar, Euro, British Pound, and Australian Dollar. Daily frequency data from 01/01/2/2019 to 30/08/2024 are used. These currencies are highly correlated and integrated over the long run. The British Pound and Australian Dollar sometimes lead global currency markets despite the US dollar’s dominance. These findings contradict that the US dollar dominates and show that global currency connections are reciprocal. Safe-haven currencies like the Japanese Yen have more significant negative correlations with the US dollar during economic instability, giving investors hedging possibilities. The research shows how macroeconomic variables and global market circumstances shape currency interdependencies and provides insights for investors, policymakers, and risk managers. Recommendations for additional study include investigating geopolitical implications on currency dynamics and expanding the investigation to developing economies. These results have substantial implications for controlling currency risk and creating international monetary policy.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture Business JournalSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207