Assessing the forecasting model ability in measuring the prevention transmission of COVID-19 pandemic: An application of visibility analysis using Inductive logic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forecasting is an integral approach due to its ability to make informed act decisions and develop data-driven strategies. It's also used to make decisions related to current circumstances and predictions on future conditions. An integral part has been developed using visibility analysis for COVID-19 Outbreak, a lesson from Indonesia. The author identified that its topic has limited attention, especially in assessing the forecasting models. The issue comes from predicted results that are questionable or cannot be trusted without applying the visibility analysis in the forecasting model. The visibility analysis is required to assess the model's ability to forecast future events. In conjunction with the issue, this paper introduces the analysis of visibility error with the different concepts during model development for the transmission prevention measures in making the decision. This study applied a statistical approach to assess the visibility error of forecasting performance in determining how long periods of forecasting and deciding for transmission prevention measures COVID-19 pandemics. Also, we developed the visibility error of time-variant using inductive logic. The result indicated that the number of data required to perform forecasting work on the basis of forecasting model specifications. In conclusion, this study has been completed to develop the statistical formula for identifying the largest time horizon in forecasting model N = V + 2. Also, this developed model can assist the stakeholder in forecasting the number of transmission prevention and making the decision in case of COVID-19 pandemic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".