MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581567161

EVALUATION OF FORECASTS PRODUCED BY GENETICALLY EVOLVED MODELS

2000· preprint· en· W1581567161 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2000
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic programmingHeuristicsComputer scienceSeries (stratigraphy)Simple (philosophy)Process (computing)Machine learningProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic programming (GP) is a random search computer algorithm that parallels Darwin’s theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. It finds application in pattern recognition and optimization problems in the natural sciences, engineering, business, and social sciences. This paper introduces GP and uses a GP computer program to evolve time-series models especially relevant for applied statisticians. Prediction models are evolved for simulated noise-free and noisy data as well as for real world Canadian lynx and sunspot numbers. Forecasts produced by the fittest of the genetically evolved models are evaluated and compared with available forecasts in prior studies. KEY WORDS: Time-series prediction; Computational methods; Nonlinear

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.267 · 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