ArticlePloS one2025
Does geopolitical risks drive the extreme spillovers of bulk energy and chemical commodity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geopolitical risks (GPR) can affect the prices of natural resources, which are crucial for survival and sustainable economies. Based on the TVP-VAR-BK models, this paper examines the asymmetric risk contagion between geopolitical risk, bulk energy, and chemical commodity from a time-frequency perspective. The results show that the risk contagion of geopolitical risks, bulk energy and chemical commodity markets has time-varying asymmetry and periodicity, and is susceptible to extreme events. Furthermore, the main driving factor is high-frequency spillover, which has "short-term fragility", that is, the risk spillover in the short term is more significant than in the medium and long term, and network spillover is mainly caused by negative risk changes. In addition, the bulk energy market is the main risk transmitter, while the chemical commodity market is the main risk receiver. The risk contagion of crude oil on bitumen markets is the most significant. Finally, as a downstream market of the crude oil industry, the chemical commodity market not only directly accepts risk contagion from the crude oil market, but also transmits risks along the "bulk energy - geopolitical risk - chemical commodity" path. This evidence has important implications for governments and regulators in taking steps to prevent extreme spillover effects and a series of chain reactions from geopolitical risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.