MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310784875 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.11.088

On the accuracy of Covid-19 forecasting methods in Russia for two years

2022· article· en· W4310784875 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsMean absolute percentage errorStatisticComputer scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)StatisticsArtificial neural networkPopulationMean absolute errorSet (abstract data type)Simple (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceEconometricsMean squared errorDemographyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effectiveness of predicting the dynamics of the coronavirus pandemic for Russia as a whole and for Moscow is studied for a two-year period beginning March 2020. The comparison includes well-proven population models and statistic methods along with a new data-driven model based on the LSTM neural network. The latter model is trained on a set of Russian regions simultaneously, and predicts the total number of cases on the 14-day forecast horizon. Prediction accuracy is estimated by the mean absolute percent error (MAPE). The results show that all the considered models, both simple and more complex, have similar efficiency. The lowest error achieved is 18% MAPE for Moscow and 8% MAPE for Russia.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.461
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.062 · 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