MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386461466 · doi:10.3390/math11183808

Forecasting Canadian Age-Specific Mortality Rates: Application of Functional Time Series Analysis

2023· article· en· W4386461466 on OpenAlexaffabout
Azizur Rahman, Depeng Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortality rateSeries (stratigraphy)DemographyTime seriesPopulationRegression analysisStatisticsFunctional principal component analysisDescriptive statisticsEconometricsPrincipal component analysisGerontologyMedicineMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the insurance and pension industries, as well as in designing social security systems, forecasted mortality rates are of major interest. The current research provides statistical methods based on functional time series analysis to improve mortality rate prediction for the Canadian population. The proposed functional time series-based model was applied to the three-mortality series: total, male and female age-specific Canadian mortality rate over the year 1991 to 2019. Descriptive measures were used to estimate the overall temporal patterns and the functional principal component regression model (fPCA) was used to predict the next ten years mortality rate for each series. Functional autoregressive model (fAR (1)) was used to measure the impact of one year age differences on mortality series. For total series, the mortality rates for children have dropped over the whole data period, while the difference between young adults and those over 40 has only been falling since about 2003 and has leveled off in the last decade of the data. A moderate to strong impact of age differences on Canadian age-specific mortality series was observed over the years. Wider application of fPCA to provide more accurate estimates in public health, demography, and age-related policy studies should be considered.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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