A Random Forests Approach to Predicting Clean Energy Stock Prices
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
Climate change, green consumers, energy security, fossil fuel divestment, and technological innovation are powerful forces shaping an increased interest towards investing in companies that specialize in clean energy. Well informed investors need reliable methods for predicting the stock prices of clean energy companies. While the existing literature on forecasting stock prices shows how difficult it is to predict stock prices, there is evidence that predicting stock price direction is more successful than predicting actual stock prices. This paper uses the machine learning method of random forests to predict the stock price direction of clean energy exchange traded funds. Some well-known technical indicators are used as features. Decision tree bagging and random forests predictions of stock price direction are more accurate than those obtained from logit models. For a 20-day forecast horizon, tree bagging and random forests methods produce accuracy rates of between 85% and 90% while logit models produce accuracy rates of between 55% and 60%. Tree bagging and random forests are easy to understand and estimate and are useful methods for forecasting the stock price direction of clean energy stocks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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