A User-Centric Analysis of Social Media for Stock Market Prediction
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
Social media platforms such as Twitter or StockTwits are widely used for sharing stock market opinions between investors, traders, and entrepreneurs. Empirically, previous work has shown that the content posted on these social media platforms can be leveraged to predict various aspects of stock market performance. Nonetheless, actors on these social media platforms may not always have altruistic motivations and may instead seek to influence stock trading behavior through the (potentially misleading) information they post. While a lot of previous work has sought to analyze how social media can be used to predict the stock market, there remain many questions regarding the quality of the predictions and the behavior of active users on these platforms. To this end, this article seeks to address a number of open research questions: Which social media platform is more predictive of stock performance? What posted content is actually predictive, and over what time horizon? How does stock market posting behavior vary among different users? Are all users trustworthy or do some user’s predictions consistently mislead about the true stock movement? To answer these questions, we analyzed data from Twitter and StockTwits covering almost 5 years of posted messages spanning 2015 to 2019. The results of this large-scale study provide a number of important insights among which we present the following: (i) StockTwits is a more predictive source of information than Twitter, leading us to focus our analysis on StockTwits; (ii) on StockTwits, users’ self-labeled sentiments are correlated with the stock market but are only slightly predictive in aggregate over the short-term; (iii) there are at least three clear types of temporal predictive behavior for users over a 144 days horizon: short, medium, and long term; and (iv) consistently incorrect users who are reliably wrong tend to exhibit what we conjecture to be “botlike” post content and their removal from the data tends to improve stock market predictions from self-labeled content.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.009 | 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