MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416392824 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18110645

SME, Crisis and Geopolitical Risk: Lessons from COVID-19 and War

2025· article· en· W4416392824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tonmoy Choudhury, Amer Al Fadli, Nataly Butros, Abubaker Fadul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsVolatility (finance)Equity (law)Emerging marketsPsychological resilienceResilience (materials science)Crisis management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores how geopolitical risk impacts small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine war. Using daily return data from the ECPI Italy SME Equity and Shenzhen SME Composite indexes, as well as the Global Geopolitical Risk Index, this study employs a Dynamic Conditional Correlation GARCH model to analyze how correlations change over time. The results show that Asian SMEs, represented by China, exhibit higher short-term volatility but stronger long-term resilience than their European counterparts. Notably, Asian markets react consistently across crises, while European markets distinguish between different events. These findings provide important insights for policymakers, suggesting the need for standardized crisis response frameworks and emphasizing short-term mitigation efforts. This study adds to SME theory by highlighting the complex relationship between geopolitical shocks and SME performance, with important implications for risk management and regulatory strategies in emerging economies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207