MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040735861 · doi:10.1002/for.1044

On forecasting counts

2008· article· en· W2040735861 on OpenAlexafffund
Brajendra C. Sutradhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forecasting · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)EconometricsNegative binomial distributionBayesian probabilityPoisson distributionComputer scienceProbabilistic forecastingTime seriesStatisticsMathematicsProbabilistic logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Forecasting for a time series of low counts, such as forecasting the number of patents to be awarded to an industry, is an important research topic in socio‐economic sectors. Recently (2004), Freeland and McCabe introduced a Gaussian type stationary correlation model‐based forecasting which appears to work well for the stationary time series of low counts. In practice, however, it may happen that the time series of counts will be non‐stationary and also the series may contain over‐dispersed counts. To develop the forecasting functions for this type of non‐stationary over‐dispersed data, the paper provides an extension of the stationary correlation models for Poisson counts to the non‐stationary correlation models for negative binomial counts. The forecasting methodology appears to work well, for example, for a US time series of polio counts, whereas the existing Bayesian methods of forecasting appear to encounter serious convergence problems. Further, a simulation study is conducted to examine the performance of the proposed forecasting functions, which appear to work well irrespective of whether the time series contains small or large counts. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ForecastingSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207