Predicting the Effects of News Sentiments on the Stock Market
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
Stock market forecasting is very important in the planning of business activities. Stock price prediction has attracted many researchers in multiple disciplines including computer science, statistics, economics, finance, and operations research. Recent studies have shown that the vast amount of online information in the public domain such as Wikipedia usage pattern, news stories from the mainstream media, and social media discussions can have an observable effect on investors' opinions towards financial markets. The reliability of the computational models on stock market prediction is important as it is very sensitive to the economy and can directly lead to financial loss. In this paper, we retrieved, extracted, and analyzed the effects of news sentiments on the stock market. Our main contributions include the development of a sentiment analysis dictionary for the financial sector, the development of a dictionary-based sentiment analysis model, and the evaluation of the model for gauging the effects of news sentiments on stocks for the pharmaceutical market. Using only news sentiments, we achieved a directional accuracy of 70.59% in predicting the trends in short-term stock price movement.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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