MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412958056 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18080435

Development of Financial Indicator Set for Automotive Stock Performance Prediction Using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System

2025· article· en· W4412958056 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemNeuro-fuzzyAutomotive industryInference systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFuzzy inference systemStock (firearms)Machine learningData miningEconometricsFuzzy logicEngineeringMathematicsFuzzy control system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the predictive performance of financial indicators in forecasting stock prices within the automotive sector using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). In light of the growing complexity of global financial markets and the increasing demand for automated, data-driven forecasting models, this research aims to identify those financial ratios that most accurately reflect price dynamics in this specific industry. The model incorporates four widely used financial indicators, return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), earnings per share (EPS), and profit margin (PM), as inputs. The analysis is based on real financial and market data from automotive companies, and model performance was assessed using RMSE, nRMSE, and confidence intervals. The results indicate that the full model, including all four indicators, achieved the highest accuracy and prediction stability, while the exclusion of ROA or ROE significantly deteriorated model performance. These findings challenge the weak-form efficiency hypothesis and underscore the relevance of firm-level fundamentals in stock price formation. This study’s sector-specific approach highlights the importance of tailoring predictive models to industry characteristics, offering implications for both financial modeling and investment strategies. Future research directions include expanding the indicator set, increasing the sample size, and testing the model across additional industry domains.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.276 · 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