MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Accurate are WorldPop-Global Gridded Population Data at the Cell-Level?: A Simulation Analysis in Urban Namibia

2021· preprint· en· W3129472902 on OpenAlexaff
Dana R. Thomson, Douglas R. Leasure, Tomas J. Bird, Nikos Tzavidis, Andrew J. Tatem

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsCensusPopulationSlumGeographyGridUrbanizationScale (ratio)Grid cellComputer scienceStatisticsCartographyDemographyEconomic growthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disaggregated population counts are needed to calculate health, economic, and development indicators in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), especially in settings of rapid urbanisation. Censuses are often outdated and inaccurate in LMIC settings, and rarely disaggregated at fine geographic scale. Modelled gridded population datasets derived from census data have become widely used by development researchers and practitioners; however, none of these datasets have been evaluated for accuracy of population estimates at the grid cell-level. This is because the finest-scale population figures generally available to data producers are those input into gridded population models and disaggregated to smaller grid cells (e.g., 100x100m). We simulate a realistic "true" 2016 population in Khomas, Namibia, a majority urban region, and introduce realistic levels of outdatedness (over 15 years) and inaccuracy in slum, non-slum, and rural areas. We then aggregate these simulated realistic populations by census and administrative boundaries (to mimic census data), and generate 32 gridded population datasets that are typical of a LMIC setting using WorldPop-Global's gridded population approach. We evaluate the cell-level accuracy of these simulated WorldPop-Global datasets, using the original "true" population as a reference. In our simulation, we found large cell-level errors, particularly in urban cells, driven by WorldPop-Global's use of average population densities in large areal units to determine cell-level population densities. Age, accuracy, and aggregation of the input data did play a primary role in these errors. We suggest incorporating finer-scale training data into gridded population models generally, and WorldPop-Global in particular (e.g., from simulated populations, routine household surveys, or slum community profiles), and use of new building footprint datasets as a covariate to improve cell-level accuracy of gridded population data. It is important to measure cell-level accuracy of all gridded population datasets, especially if they are to be used for monitoring key development indicators.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207