MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414259958 · doi:10.61351/mf.v3i3.318

Modelling volatility spillovers between prices of petroleum and stock sector indices: A multivariate GARCH comparison

2025· article· en· W4414259958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miramir Bagirov, Cesário Mateus

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)PortfolioStock (firearms)PetroleumMultivariate statisticsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares four multivariate GARCH approaches in modelling bilateral return and volatility spillovers between petroleum prices and self-constructed stock sector indices of net petroleum exporters (Canada and Saudi Arabia) and net petroleum importers (the United States and China). The estimates are subsequently used to quantify optimal portfolio weights and hedge ratios and to evaluate the effectiveness of the resulting hedging strategies. The outputs point to the presence of heterogeneous volatility interdependencies, which are more evident for Canada and the United States. The optimal weight of petroleum is greater in portfolios comprising stock sector indices of Saudi Arabia and China, which also provide lower hedging costs. Time-varying conditional correlations, portfolio weights, and hedge ratios exhibit considerable variations, particularly during turbulent periods. Finally, the hedging strategies generated from the VAR-DCC-GARCH specification result in the greatest reduction, although not substantial, of risks for portfolios involving stock sector indices of all countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern FinanceSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207