MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385720957 · doi:10.54254/2755-2721/8/20230252

Machine Learning in Stock Price Analysis

2023· article· en· W4385720957 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Computational Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Computer scienceStock priceStock marketMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsEconomicsEngineeringSeries (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, people have been using machine learning algorithms to analyze stock prices. This is because these algorithms can help investors make better decisions and find opportunities to make money in the stock market. This paper explains how machine learning can be used to analyze stock prices, including how to collect and prepare data, choose important features, pick the best model, and measure how well the model works. The paper also shares the results of a study using a Long Short-term Memory (LSTM) model to predict stock prices with an accuracy of 98.86%, which is very impressive. This means that machine learning algorithms can be really useful for analyzing stock prices. However, the stock market can be unpredictable and people should still depend on their own knowledge and expertise when making decisions. In the future, researchers should study larger and more diverse datasets and explore other machine learning algorithms for stock price analysis.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.285 · 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