MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2391639944

Forecasting stock indexes based on a revised grey model and the ARMA model

2010· article· en· W2391639944 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCaai Transactions on Intelligent Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGrey System Theory Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive–moving-average modelAutoregressive modelMathematicsComputer scienceMoving averageMoving-average modelApplied mathematicsAutoregressive integrated moving averageEconometricsStatisticsTime series
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hybrid grey model—autoregressive moving average ( GM-ARMA) model,constructed by combing the GM ( 1,1) model and the ARMA model,has two drawbacks.One drawback is that the GM-ARMA model may not be optimal since the traditional GM ( 1,1) model is not optimal.The other is that the GM-ARMA model does not combine two sub-models properly;this may also cause the GM-ARMA model to be suboptimal.This paper tries to first modify the GM ( 1,1) model by introducing 2 parameters,the grey dimension degree and white background value.A revised GM-ARMA model was constructed by optimizing all parameters in the GM ( 1,1) model and the ARMA model simultaneously.For convenience,we called this revised GM-ARMA model the RGM-ARMA model.Experimental results showed that the RGM-ARMA model has fewer prediction errors than the ARMA model or the GM-ARMA model and gives a new solution for construction of hybrid models.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.204 · 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