Twitter sentiment classification using machine learning techniques for stock markets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sentiment classification of Twitter data has been successfully applied in finding predictions in a variety of domains. However, using sentiment classification to predict stock market variables is still challenging and ongoing research. The main objective of this study is to compare the overall accuracy of two machine learning techniques (logistic regression and neural network) with respect to providing a positive, negative and neutral sentiment for stock-related tweets. Both classifiers are compared using Bigram term frequency (TF) and Unigram term frequency - inverse document term frequency (TF-IDF) weighting schemes. Classifiers are trained using a dataset that contains 42,000 automatically annotated tweets. The training dataset forms positive, negative and neutral tweets covering four technology-related stocks (Twitter, Google, Facebook, and Tesla) collected using Twitter Search API. Classifiers give the same results in terms of overall accuracy (58%). However, empirical experiments show that using Unigram TF-IDF outperforms TF.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it