The Emotion Magnitude Effect: Navigating Market Dynamics Amidst Supply Chain Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the volatile market period of 2019–2021, characterized by geopolitical shifts, economic sanctions, pandemics, natural disasters, and wars, the global market presented a complex landscape for financial decision making and motivated this study. This study makes two groundbreaking and novel contributions. First, we augment Plunket’s emotional research and leverage the emotional classification algorithm in Fin-Emotion to introduce a novel quantitative metric, “emotion magnitude”, that captures the emotional undercurrents of the market. When integrated with traditional time series analysis using Temporal Convolutional Networks applied to stock market futures, this metric offers a more holistic understanding of market dynamics. In our experiments, incorporating it as a feature led to significantly better performance on both the training and validation sets (9.26%, 52.11%) compared to traditional market-based risk measures, in predicting futures market trends based on the commodities and supply chains analyzed. Second, we deploy a multidimensional data science framework that synthesizes disparate data streams and analyses. This includes stock metrics of sector-leading companies, the time horizon of significant market events identified based on company stock data, and the extraction of further knowledge concepts identified through “emotion magnitude” analysis. Our approach stitches together countries, commodities, and supply chains identified in the targeted news search and identifies the domestic companies impacted based on the time horizon of these emotional supply chain events. This methodology culminates in a unified knowledge graph that not only highlights the relationships between supply chain disruptions, affected corporations, and commodities but also quantifies the broader systemic implications of such market events that are revealed. Collectively, these innovations form a robust analytical tool for financial risk strategy, empowering stakeholders to navigate an ever-evolving financial global ecosystem with enhanced insights. This graph encapsulates multi-dimensional forces and enables stakeholders to anticipate and understand the broader causal implications of related supply chain and market events (such as economic sanctions’ impact on the energy, technology, and telecommunication sectors).
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 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 | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".