latent Dirichlet allocation method-based nowcasting approach for prediction of silver price
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silver is a metal that offers significant value to both investors and companies. The purpose of this study is to make an estimation of the price of silver. While making this estimation, it is planned to include the frequency of searches on Google Trends for the words that affect the silver price. Thus, it is aimed to obtain a more accurate estimate. First, using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation method, the keywords to be analyzed in Google Trends were collected from various articles on the Internet. Mining data from Google Trends combined with the information obtained by LDA is the new approach this study took, to predict the price of silver. No study has been found in the literature that has adopted this approach to estimate the price of silver. The estimation was carried out with Random Forest Regression, Gaussian Process Regression, Support Vector Machine, Regression Trees and Artificial Neural Networks methods. In addition, ARIMA, which is one of the traditional methods that is widely used in time series analysis, was also used to benchmark the accuracy of the methodology. The best MSE ratio was obtained as 0,000227131 ± 0.0000235205 by the Regression Trees method. This score indicates that it would be a valid technique to estimate the price of "Silver" by using Google Trends data using the LDA method.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".