The Application of Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Stock Market Crises in Africa
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
This study sought to ascertain a machine learning algorithm capable of predicting crises in the African stock market with the highest accuracy. Seven different machine-learning algorithms were employed on historical stock prices of the eight stock markets, three main sentiment indicators, and the exchange rate of the respective countries’ currencies against the US dollar, each spanning from 1 May 2007 to 1 April 2023. It was revealed that extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) emerged as the most effective way of predicting crises. Historical stock prices and exchange rates were found to be the most important features, exerting strong influences on stock market crises. Regarding the sentiment front, investors’ perceptions of possible volatility on the S&P 500 (Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) VIX) and the Daily News Sentiment Index were identified as influential predictors. The study advances an understanding of market sentiment and emphasizes the importance of employing advanced computational techniques for risk management and market stability.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it