MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295073998 · doi:10.1215/00703370-10216406

A Bayesian Cohort Component Projection Model to Estimate Women of Reproductive Age at the Subnational Level in Data-Sparse Settings

2022· article· en· W4295073998 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Alexander, Leontine Alkema

Bibliographic record

VenueDemography · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulation projectionProjections of population growthCensusPopulationEstimationGeographyDemographyDemographic analysisCohortPopulation statisticsEconometricsPopulation growthStatisticsEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate estimates of subnational populations are important for policy formulation and monitoring population health indicators. For example, estimates of the number of women of reproductive age are important to understand the population at risk of maternal mortality and unmet need for contraception. However, in many low-income countries, data on population counts and components of population change are limited, and so subnational levels and trends are unclear. We present a Bayesian constrained cohort component model for the estimation and projection of subnational populations. The model builds on a cohort component projection framework, incorporates census data and estimates from the United Nation's World Population Prospects, and uses characteristic mortality schedules to obtain estimates of population counts and the components of population change, including internal migration. The data required as inputs to the model are minimal and available across a wide range of countries, including most low-income countries. The model is applied to estimate and project populations by county in Kenya for 1979-2019 and is validated against the 2019 Kenyan census.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDemographySame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207