A comparison of ARIMA and ANN techniques in predicting port productivity and berth effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business process evaluation is a common norm in small-medium-large industries globally and information obtained during such evaluation have been used in simulating the future performance of most industries using mathematical models such as Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and artificial neural network (ANN). This study explored the possibility of predicting port productivity and berth effectiveness of a seaport using ANN and ARIMA. A comparative analysis of a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) back propagation algorithm and ARIMA performance was carried out based on ships days at port, days at berth and tonnage: the model's input parameters, while port productivity and berth effectiveness were the model outputs. The MLP-ANN and ARIMA (1, 0, 4-port productivity) and (1, 0, 4-berth effectiveness) results were compared based on their coefficient of correlation and mean square error. The coefficient of correlation for port productivity prediction using MLP-ANN was 0.998. This value outperformed that of ARIMA (0.9862) for port productivity; berth effectiveness coefficients of correlation of 0.9956 and 0.9928 were obtained using the MLP-ANN and the ARIMA models, respectively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".