Stock Market Classification Model Using Sentiment Analysis on Twitter Based on Hybrid Naive Bayes Classifiers
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 analysis has become one of the most popular process to predict stock market behaviour based on consumer reactions. Concurrently, the availability of data from Twitter has also attracted researchers towards this research area. Most of the models related to sentiment analysis are still suffering from inaccuracies. The low accuracy in classification has a direct effect on the reliability of stock market indicators. The study primarily focuses on the analysis of the Twitter dataset. Moreover, an improved model is proposed in this study; it is designed to enhance the classification accuracy. The first phase of this model is data collection, and the second involves the filtration and transformation, which are conducted to get only relevant data. The most crucial phase is labelling, in which polarity of data is determined and negative, positive or neutral values are assigned to people opinion. The fourth phase is the classification phase in which suitable patterns of the stock market are identified by hybridizing Naïve Bayes Classifiers (NBCs), and the final phase is the performance and evaluation. This study proposes Hybrid Naïve Bayes Classifiers (HNBCs) as a machine learning method for stock market classification. The outcome is instrumental for investors, companies, and researchers whereby it will enable them to formulate their plans according to the sentiments of people. The proposed method has produced a significant result; it has achieved accuracy equals 90.38%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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