MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393436133 · doi:10.54097/gdm0kc53

Stock Price Prediction Using Machine Learning Techniques

2024· article· en· W4393436133 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

VenueHighlights in Science Engineering and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock priceStock (firearms)Computer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsEconomicsEngineeringGeologyMechanical engineeringSeries (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large variations in stock price and unstable fluctuations will not only bring huge losses but also might influence the decisions made by investors. Machine learning in financial areas has been widely used in the past few years, and they are especially superior in forecasting tasks. This article will talk about how machine learning techniques could be used to predict stock prices and some possible ways of improvements. The main method used in this article is the LSTM structure, and the building blocks are constructed into a full Recurrent Neural Network to predict the price for several famous technology companies from NASDAQ. According to the results in this article, a forecasting algorithm based on the LSTM model can minor the error down to a few dollars. It is overall not accurate enough and cannot be used to draw a financial conclusion about investment, but still possible to explain some personal confusion and give solutions to individual difficulties. In addition, this study can be further upgraded in terms of structure and logic. This article hopes to provide a broader research perspective for the application of machine learning in the financial field.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.304 · 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