MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387568023 · doi:10.1080/10920277.2023.2231996

Modeling and Forecasting Subnational Mortality in the Presence of Aggregated Data

2023· article· en· W4387568023 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐François Bégin, Barbara Sanders, Xueyi Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsComputer scienceEconometricsPensionEstimationSocioeconomic statusBayesian probabilityAggregate (composite)Aggregate dataActuarial scienceGeographyOperations researchStatisticsPopulationDemographyEconomicsSociologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes a new approach to modeling subnational mortality that relies on individual features (e.g., sex, geographical region, socioeconomic status) instead of dealing directly with subpopulations. Our strategy leads to more parsimonious models because fewer parameters are needed to explain mortality. Also, data providers might aggregate data over privacy concerns, and our framework allows for the use of such data, unlike the common subnational mortality modeling approach. A general one-step Bayesian estimation methodology that works well with most age–period–cohort mortality models proposed thus far in the literature is presented; it uses Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques by combining deterministic filtering with adaptive Metropolis steps and is well-suited for high-dimensional cases like the one investigated in this article. In a case study using real data, the framework is applied to Canadian mortality data from three datasets that encompass three features: sex, geographic region, and socioeconomic status. We show that the proposed approach combined with a reasonable mortality model provides realistic, coherent, and plausible mortality projections and that it fits the data reasonably.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207