Evaluating the effect of sample length on forecasting validity of FGM(1,1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three indicators (GDP, PCDIIP-rh and Total Population) are selected in this paper to study the effect of sample length on forecasting validity of FGM(1,1). It has passed the test, such as development coefficient, mean relative error within the sample, and ratio of mean square error. The above three sets of indicators are proved to be suitable for FGM(1,1) to make predictions. The results of the study indicate that the forecasting of 4–6 sample lengths is the most appropriate. The MAPE of 5 sample length is better than sample lengths 4 or 6. The conclusion of this study is verified by taking the oil production of India and Canada as examples. On this basis, the sample length 5 is selected to predict the average annual concentration of PM2.5 from 2019 to 2021 in Xingtai. The forecasting results show that the PM2.5 in Xingtai will decline in the next three years, but it will not reach the national level 2 concentration limit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".