MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005202186 · doi:10.1080/10920277.2020.1716808

Drivers of Mortality Dynamics: Identifying Age/Period/Cohort Components of Historical U.S. Mortality Improvements

2020· article· en· W3005202186 on OpenAlexaff
Johnny S.-H. Li, Rui Zhou, Yanxin Liu, George Graziani, Ros Hall, Jennifer Haid, A. Townsend Peterson, Laurence Pinzur

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)DecompositionMortality rateCohortDemographyCohort effectStatisticsEconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this article is to obtain an age/period/cohort (A/P/C) decomposition of historical U.S. mortality improvement. Two different routes to achieving this goal are considered. In the first route, the desired components are obtained by fitting an A/P/C model directly to historical mortality improvement rates. In the second route, an A/P/C model is estimated to historical crude death rates and the desired components are then obtained by differencing the estimated model parameters. For each route, various possible A/P/C model structures are tested and evaluated on the basis of their robustness to several factors (e.g., changes in the calibration window) and their ability to explain historical changes in mortality improvement. Based on the evaluation results, an A/P/C decomposition for each gender is recommended. The decomposition will be examined in a follow-up project, in which the linkages between the A/P/C components and certain intrinsic factors will be identified.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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