MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Cryptocurrency Prices: A Machine Learning Approach for Investment Strategies and Market Trend Analysis

2025· article· en· W4411584440 on OpenAlexaff
T. Sasikala, J. Joshua Daniel Raj, B Swathi, K Archana, Bhoomika Ambati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptocurrencyInvestment (military)Computer scienceEconometricsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEconomicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryptocurrencies have emerged as significant players in the financial market, attracting substantial investments and interest. However, the market's high volatility and unpredictability pose challenges for investors in forecasting price movements and achieving profitable investments. This study aims to develop a model that predicts future cryptocurrency prices, providing valuable insights for investment strategies and market trend analysis. The proposed model utilizes advanced methods such as feature selection and a combination of Random Forest Regression and Linear Regression techniques to analyze historical price data and generate real-time forecasts. The study employs the CoinGecko API to retrieve cryptocurrency data and presents users with a Streamlit web application for interacting with the prediction system. Users can log in, select a cryptocurrency, and obtain future price predictions based on the chosen machine learning algorithm. The architecture of the program involves fetching data from the API, applying machine learning algorithms, and displaying the results through a user interface. By comparing the accuracy of Linear Regression and Random Forest Regressor, the study aims to identify the most effective approach for cryptocurrency price prediction. The proposed model seeks to provide a robust framework for analyzing data and generating actionable insights in the dynamic cryptocurrency market, empowering investors to make informed decisions and actively participate in the financial discovery journey.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207