MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3195802189 · doi:10.1007/s11113-021-09671-6

Methods for Small Area Population Forecasts: State-of-the-Art and Research Needs

2021· article· en· W3195802189 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Wilson, Irina Grossman, Monica Alexander, Philip Rees, Jeromey Temple

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Research and Policy Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAustralian Research CouncilAustralian Government
KeywordsPopulationToolboxDownscalingComputer scienceMicrosimulationSmall area estimationCounterfactual thinkingEconometricsVariety (cybernetics)Demand forecastingOperations researchEconomicsGeographyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringEstimation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small area population forecasts are widely used by government and business for a variety of planning, research and policy purposes, and often influence major investment decisions. Yet, the toolbox of small area population forecasting methods and techniques is modest relative to that for national and large subnational regional forecasting. In this paper, we assess the current state of small area population forecasting, and suggest areas for further research. The paper provides a review of the literature on small area population forecasting methods published over the period 2001-2020. The key themes covered by the review are extrapolative and comparative methods, simplified cohort-component methods, model averaging and combining, incorporating socioeconomic variables and spatial relationships, 'downscaling' and disaggregation approaches, linking population with housing, estimating and projecting small area component input data, microsimulation, machine learning, and forecast uncertainty. Several avenues for further research are then suggested, including more work on model averaging and combining, developing new forecasting methods for situations which current models cannot handle, quantifying uncertainty, exploring methodologies such as machine learning and spatial statistics, creating user-friendly tools for practitioners, and understanding more about how forecasts are used. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11113-021-09671-6.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.223
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.223
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.626
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.009 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePopulation Research and Policy Review→Same topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation→French-language works237,207→