Review of machine learning with sentimental analysis method for cross-model stock price prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stock market prediction has been a popular area of research for years. Machine learning, as a fast-developing popular algorithm, is applied to stock market prediction by many previous researchers to better solve the time series involving problems over the changing prices. Different from traditional machine learning algorithms that focus on stock prices only, this paper gives a brief description and review of stock price predictions models that contain sentimental analysis over the recent paper works. Different from the prices in number format, sentimental analysis is more based on textual information extraction and mining, converting them into usable input to pass to a prediction model. This extends the prediction model's takeable input domain and strengthens the accuracy. To better classify the differences between the models, discussion and introduction are given based on different model types about whether they are traditional type or deep neural network embedded. Even though traditional types of models are more popular for sentimental analysis and neural networks perform better in prediction tasks, traditional methods are relatively easy to build or train with more explainability, compared to deep learning models suitable for larger data sets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".