MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intraday Stock Price Prediction using Machine Learning: A Case Study on YFinance Stock Data

2025· article· W4416799192 on OpenAlexaff
Dikshith Reddy Macherla, Uchechukwu Obinwanne, Wenying Feng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprocessorArtificial neural networkData pre-processingStock (firearms)Time seriesClosing (real estate)LagFeature (linguistics)Stock market

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores short-term stock price forecasting using high-frequency 2-minute interval data for Apple Inc. (AAPL), focusing on the application and evaluation of three predictive modeling approaches: Linear Regression, XGBoost, and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural networks. The dataset, collected via Yahoo Finance (YFinance API), was enriched with technical indicators, rolling statistics, and lag features to support predictive learning. The models were evaluated on their ability to predict the next closing price and directional movement. While Linear Regression achieved the highest R2score (0.9778) and lowest MSE (0.0502), XGBoost demonstrated competitive performance and provided valuable insights into feature importance. LSTM, though promising for capturing sequential dependencies, underperformed with a higher MSE (0.2490) and reduced R2(0.8932), likely due to the noisy and highly volatile nature of intraday data. All models showed limited directional accuracy (~52%), highlighting the challenge of predicting micro-movements in high-frequency financial time series. This study concludes with a discussion on the strengths and limitations of each approach and outlines future improvements including feature selection, hybrid modeling, and enhanced data preprocessing to boost intraday forecast reliability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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