MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313635619 · doi:10.37119/jpss2022.v20i1.511

Forecasting of Immigrants in Canada using Forecasting models

2022· article· en· W4313635619 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharandeep Singh Pandher, Arzu Sardarli, Andrei Volodin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Probability and Statistical Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageMean absolute percentage errorAkaike information criterionMean squared errorStatisticsBayesian information criterionEconometricsAutoregressive modelMoving averageMean absolute errorBayesian probabilityMathematicsAutoregressive–moving-average modelBox–JenkinsTime series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, the number of international students, temporary workers and refugees from every part of the world grows each year. Therefore, forecasting immigration is important for the economy of Canada and Labor Market. In this regard, four forecasting approaches have been applied to the annual data of immigrants for the period 2000-2019. The accuracy of Moving average (MA), Autoregressive (AR), Autoregressive moving average (ARMA), Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were checked via comparing Akaike’s information criteria(AIC), Bayesian information criteria (BIC), Mean error (ME), Root mean square error(RMSE), Mean absolute error (MAE), Mean percentage error (MPE), Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and Mean absolute scaled error (MASE) and graphical approaches such as ACF plots of residuals. Experimental results showed that ARIMA (1,2,4) is the best-fitted model for forecasting immigrants in Canada. Selected forecasting approaches are applied to predict immigrants for five years from 2020-2024.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Probability and Statistical ScienceSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207