Forecasting of Potato Prices in India: An Application of Arima Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present paper, Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models developed to forecast the prices of potato using time series data of eighteen years from 2002-2019. The best models selected by comparing Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE), and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The study revealed that ARIMA (1,1,2), ARIMA (2,1,1)(0,0,2)[12], ARIMA (2,1,2), ARIMA (1,1,4)(0,0,1)[12], ARIMA (1,1,1)(0,1,2)[12], ARIMA (0,1,0)(0,1,1)[12], and ARIMA (3,1,3) were the best fitted models for forecasting of price of potato for the states of Utter Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab, Tripura and India respectively. The prices of potato in Utter Pradesh, West Bengal and India will be increasing with the first-quarter providing the highest price. The prices of potato in Madhya Pradesh and Tripura will be highest in the fourth quarter. In Punjab, the prices of potato will be increasing with the third-quarter. The forecast shows that market prices of potato in Utter Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab, Tripura, and overall India would be ruling in the highest value of .1208 `/qt, 1812 `/qt, 1345 `/qt, 1712 `/qt, 1354 `/qt, 2636 `/qt, and 1715 `/qt respectively for the year 2020.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it