The comparison between extreme learning machine and artificial neural network-back propagation for predicting the dengue incidences number in DKI Jakarta
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
Abstract The existence of COVID-19 in Indonesia is not the only disease which we must be aware of. The Health Ministry has said that Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever is as dangerous as COVID-19 and must also be treated with caution. Based on data, until July 2020, there are 71,633 dengue cases in Indonesia and DKI Jakarta has the sixth-highest dengue incidence number. One of the factors that affects the spread of dengue vector is weather. It is necessary to predict the number of dengue incidences so that the dengue handling and prevention efforts can be done optimally. In this study, the number of dengue incidences will be predicted by involving weather factors (rainfall, temperature, and humidity) using Extreme Learning Machine and Artificial Neural Network-Back Propagation and also comparing the both of their performance. The result shows that Extreme Learning Machine can give the dengue incidence prediction in DKI Jakarta with the best RMSE testing result of 0.04584, which is more accurate than the dengue incidence prediction that is given by using Artificial Neural Network-Back Propagation with 100 epochs. Moreover, Extreme Learning Machine can do the training process faster than Artificial Neural Network-Back Propagation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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