MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784246487 · doi:10.1017/asb.2017.44

SMOOTHING POISSON COMMON FACTOR MODEL FOR PROJECTING MORTALITY JOINTLY FOR BOTH SEXES

2018· article· en· W2784246487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Pitt, Jackie Li, Tian Kang Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingPoisson distributionMathematicsProjection (relational algebra)EconometricsGeneralized linear modelStatisticsSample size determinationApplied mathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider a modification to the Poisson common factor model and utilise a generalised linear model (GLM) framework that incorporates a smoothing process and a set of linear constraints. We extend the standard GLM model structure to adopt Lagrange methods and P-splines such that smoothing and constraints are applied simultaneously as the parameters are estimated. Our results on Australian, Canadian and Norwegian data show that this modification results in an improvement in mortality projection in terms of producing more accurate forecasts in the out-of-sample testing. At the same time, projected male-to-female ratio of death rates at each age converges to a constant and the residuals of the models are sufficiently random, indicating that the use of smoothing does not adversely affect the fit of the model. Further, the irregular patterns in the estimates of the age-specific parameters are moderated as a result of smoothing and this model can be used to produce more regular projected life tables for pricing purposes.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207