MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415762045 · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05308-7

Crude oil, forex, and stock markets: unveiling the higher-order moment and cross-moment risk spillovers in times of turmoil

2025· article· en· W4415762045 on OpenAlexaff
Jinxin Cui, Aktham Maghyereh, Salem Adel Ziadat

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanities and Social Sciences Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUnited Arab Emirates UniversityZhejiang Gongshang University
KeywordsFutures contractCrude oilVolatility (finance)Spillover effectKurtosisStock (firearms)Brent CrudeSocial connectednessLiberian dollarUs dollar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study employs an analytical framework that integrates realized moment measures with a TVP-VAR-based extended joint connectedness approach to examine higher-order moment and cross-moment risk spillovers among crude oil futures (CL), Dollar Index futures (DX), and S&P 500 E-mini futures (ES). The findings reveal that the interconnectedness between crude oil, stock, and forex markets is shaped by distributional moments, with realized volatility (RV) spillovers being significantly stronger than those of higher-order moments (RS, RK) and jumps (RJ). Crude oil consistently acts as a net transmitter across all measures, underscoring its dominant role, while the forex and stock markets emerge as the primary net recipients of volatility and kurtosis spillovers, respectively. Spillover dynamics exhibit time-varying behavior and high sensitivity to crises, including the crude oil price collapse, the US‒China trade war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Notably, the RV, RJ, and cross-moment joint spillovers react more sharply to health crises, whereas higher-order moments respond more strongly to geopolitical shocks.

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 score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207