MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056238967

The Fluctuation Factors of Commodity Currencies: Exporting Resource Countries vs. Importing Resource Countries (Financial Modeling and Analysis)

2023· article· en· W7056238967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSuperconducting Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodityYield (engineering)Government (linguistics)EstimationEmpirical researchCarry (investment)Resource (disambiguation)Natural resource
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on Australian and Canadian commodity currencies and discusses an empirical analysis of their operation as a carry trade. The objective of the empirical analysis was to identify the correlation between the yield spread between the Australian 10-year government bond (or Canadian 10-year government bond) and the Japanese 10-year government bond and the related commodity markets from 2012 to 2022 using autoregressive distributed lags. The estimation results show that both of the two types of yield spreads are statistically significantly negative correlated with gold futures. In Canada-Japan, the correlation was also statistically significant positive with energy resource (crude oil and natural gas) and major mineral (iron ore and copper) futures, providing evidence that could suggest the possibility of risk management using the relevant commodity markets. On the other hand, there were some variables for which the Australia-Japan results differed from the Canada-Japan estimates or were not statistically significant. This suggests that the related commodities, especially natural gas, coal, and iron ore, with the exception of gold futures, are not suitable for risk management of the Australia-Japan yield spread.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicSuperconducting Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207