Forecasting of Potato Prices in India: An Application of Arima Model
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".