MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946357294 · doi:10.1111/rssa.12473

A Bayesian Approach to Developing a Stochastic Mortality Model for China

2019· article· en· W2946357294 on OpenAlexaff
Johnny Siu-Hang Li, Kenneth Q. Zhou, Xiaobai Zhu, Wai‐Sum Chan, F Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBayesian probabilityEconometricsStochastic modellingRange (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)StatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Stochastic mortality models have a wide range of applications. They are particularly important for analysing Chinese mortality, which is subject to rapid and uncertain changes. However, owing to data-related problems, stochastic modelling of Chinese mortality has not been given adequate attention. We attempt to use a Bayesian approach to model the evolution of Chinese mortality over time, taking into account all of the problems associated with the data set. We build on the Gaussian state space formulation of the Lee–Carter model, introducing new features to handle the missing data points, to acknowledge the fact that the data are obtained from different sources and to mitigate the erratic behaviour of the parameter estimates that arises from the data limitations. The approach proposed yields stochastic mortality forecasts that are in line with both the trend and the variation of the historical observations. We further use simulated pseudodata sets with resembling limitations to validate the approach. The validation result confirms our approach’s success in dealing with the limitations of the Chinese mortality data.

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)0.006
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)Same topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207