Economic News, Social Media Sentiments, and Stock Returns: Which Is a Bigger Driver?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides empirical evidence on the relative impact of innovations in information content and noise embedded in economic news and social media sentiments on DJIA, S&P 500, NASDAQ, and Russell 2000 index returns. We find that economic news sentiments are relatively more rational and have a greater impact than irrational social media sentiments. There exist significant negative effects of three distinct categories of social media sentiments and a significant positive impact of economic news sentiments on stock returns. The magnitude of the impact of the economic news sentiments is larger. In addition, the economic news sentiments seem to have greater information content and are driven by risk factors to a greater extent than the sentiments of social media, which probably contain more noise. There are significant negative responses of stock returns to irrational components of social media sentiments while significant positive responses to rational components of economic news sentiments. Lastly, the magnitude of the impact of rational economic news sentiments is higher than that of irrational social media sentiments. Our results are consistent with the view that business news is a manifestation of a rational outlook to a larger extent than social media and can drive stock valuations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".