Can We Rely on Projections of the Immigrant Population? The Case of Norway
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demographic forecasters must be realistic about how well they can predict future populations, and it is important that they include estimates of uncertainty in their forecasts. Here we focus on the future development of the immigrant population of Norway and their Norwegian-born children ("second generation"), grouped by three categories of country background: 1. West European countries plus the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; 2. Central and East European countries that are members of the European Union; 3. other countries. We show how to use a probabilistic forecast to assess the reliability of projections of the immigrant population and their children. We employ the method of random shares using data for immigrants and their children for 2000-2021. We model their age- and sex-specific shares relative to the whole population. Relational models are used for the age patterns in these shares, and time series models to extrapolate the parameters of the age patterns. We compute a probabilistic forecast for six population sub-groups with immigration background, and one for non-immigrants. The probabilistic forecast is calibrated against Statistics Norway's official population projection. We find that a few population trends are quite certain: strong increases to 2060 in the size of the immigrant population (more specifically those who belong to country group 3) and of Norwegian-born children of immigrants. However, prediction intervals around the forecasts of immigrants and their children by one-year age groups are so wide that these forecasts are not reliable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it