MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239079623 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14660865.v1

Hiding in Plain Sight : Sentiment Analysis and the Efficient Market Hypothesis

2021· preprint· en· W4239079623 on OpenAlexaff
David Litwin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentiment analysisStock marketStock (firearms)Financial economicsComputer scienceFinancial marketArtificial intelligenceEconomicsFinanceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stock market is a notoriously complex and unpredictable system, and because of this has always been an alluring subject for academic research seeking to make the unpredictable more predictable. This major research project is no different as it aims to quantify the predictive value of financial sentiment, determine which sentiments are most meaningful, when they are most meaningful, and if meaningful sentiment varies depending on type of stock. To pursue these goals, the project finds its theoretical footing in Eugene Fama’s Efficient Market Hypothesis and Daniel Kahneman’s Prospect Theory. However, the methodological component of this project enters into emerging territory as it employs sentiment analysis and machine learning, which have only recently been made possible by advances in technology and communications practices. Specifically, through the use of the Loughran-McDonald dictionary for financial sentiment, corporate press releases were analyzed and tested using a Random Forest machine learning model. The results from this project show that financial senitiment found in press releases does provide a slight predictive edge, however the sentiments responsible for that edge vary based on type of stock, type of fluctuation being predicted, and timeframe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207