Prediksi Harga Minyak Kelapa Sawit Dalam Investasi Dengan Membandingkan Algoritma Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machine dan K-Nearest Neighbor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harga minyak kelapa sawit bisa mengalami kenaikan, penurunan maupun tetap setiap hari karena faktor yang mempengaruhi harga minyak kelapa sawit seperti harga minyak nabati lain (minyak kedelai dan minyak canola), harga minyak mentah dunia, maupun nilai tukar riil antara kurs dolar terhadap mata uang negara produsen (rupiah, ringgit, dan canada) atau mata uang negara konsumen (rupee). Untuk itu dibutuhkan prediksi harga minyak kelapa sawit yang cukup akurat agar para investor bisa mendapatkan keuntungan sesuai perencanaan yang dibuat. tujuan dari penelitian ini yaitu untuk mengetahui perbandingan accuracy, precision, dan recall yang dihasilkan oleh algoritma Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machine, dan K-Nearest Neighbor dalam menyelesaikan masalah prediksi harga minyak kelapa sawit dalam investasi. Berdasarkan hasil pengujian dalam penelitian yang telah dilakukan, algoritma Support Vector Machine memiliki accuracy, precision, dan recall dengan jumlah paling tinggi dibandingkan dengan algoritma Naïve Bayes dan algoritma K-Nearest Neighbor. Nilai accuracy tertinggi pada penelitian ini yaitu 82,46% dengan precision tertinggi yaitu 86% dan recall tertinggi yaitu 89,06%.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".