An Empirical Study on Chinese Futures Market Based on Bollinger Bands Strategy and R
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
Abstract Quantitative investment trading is becoming more and more popular due to the gradual integration of computer technology, mathematics, and statistics. It is of great practical significance to develop a multi-species portfolio investment model that takes into account various transaction costs and conforms to live trading. In this paper, we use the free software R to program the Bollinger Bands trading strategy and test it on the historical data of the Chinese futures market. Through in-sample optimization, out-of-sample testing and correlation test, the varieties with good back testing effect are selected for risky investment portfolio to provide investors involved in the Chinese futures market with specific trading strategies that can be used for reference, and at the same time to provide investors with a way of thinking to develop quantitative investment portfolio models. JEL classification numbers: C60. Keywords: Quantitative investment, R language, Chinese futures market, Bollinger Bands.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 it