Testing Weak Form Efficiency on the Toronto Stock Exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to test for weak form efficiency in the market a vast pool of individual stocks must be analyzed rather than a stock market index. In this paper, a model-based bootstrap is used to generate a series of simulated trials and a modified chart pattern recognition algorithm is applied to all stocks listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). The number of patterns detected in the original price series is compared with the number of patterns found in the simulated series. By simulating the price path specific time dependencies present in real data are eliminated, making price changes purely random. Patterns, if consistently identified, carry information which adds value to the investment process, however, this informativeness does not guarantee profitability. Conclusions are drawn on the relative efficiency of some sectors of the economy. Although the null hypothesis of weak form efficiency on the TSX cannot be rejected, some sectors of the Canadian economy appear to be less efficient than others. In addition, pattern frequencies appear to be negatively dependent on the two moments of return distributions, variance and kurtosis. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".