MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610313537 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v10n6p1

The Effectiveness of the Elliott Waves Theory to Forecast Financial Markets: Evidence from the Currency Market

2017· article· en· W2610313537 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrencyLiberian dollarEconomicsFinancial marketExchange rateUs dollarTechnical analysisFinancial economicsForeign exchange marketMonetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the capability of a technical analysis to be used as a valuable tool in forecasting financial markets. After discussing the primary theoretical and methodological differences that oppose the fundamental analysis and technical analysis and introducing the Elliott waves theory, the paper focuses on the results obtained after applying this method to the currency market. The results show that during the period from 2009-2015, the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and euro could be forecasted with great accuracy. A potential future pattern is also proposed for the exchange rate beginning in March 2017. The research confirmed the usefulness of Elliott’s model for predicting currency markets, and the effectiveness of the fundamental analysis theories generally adopted for academic studies was evaluated.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.536
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.536
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0130.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.271 · 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