MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Lee-Carter Model for Forecasting Mortality, Revisited

2007· article· en· W2143421159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Siu-Hang Li, Wai‐Sum Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutlierEconometricsIndex (typography)Statistical modelStatisticsProbabilistic logicTime seriesSeries (stratigraphy)Anomaly detectionComputer scienceMathematicsData miningBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interrupting phenomena are commonly encountered in time-series data analysis with the study of mortality trends being no exception. Nevertheless, previous demographic forecasts have paid little attention to the existence of such phenomena. In this study we use mortality data from Canada and the United States to perform time-series outlier analysis on the key component of the Lee-Carter model: the mortality index. We begin by employing a systematic outlier detection process to ascertain the timing, magnitude, and persistence of any outliers present in historical trends of the mortality index. We then try to match the identified outliers with important events that could possibly justify the vacillations in human mortality levels. At the same time, we adjust the effect of the outliers for model reestimation. The empirical results indicate that the outlieradjusted model could achieve better fits and more efficient forecasts of variables such as the central rates of death and the life expectancies at birth. Finally, we conclude our study with possible extensions on the valuations of life annuities and the probabilistic distribution of the highest attained age, incorporating the effect of mortality improvement portrayed by the revised model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207