Multi-Population O’Hare with ARIMA, ARIMA-GARCH and ANN in Forecasting Mortality Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-population mortality model has gained attention from prominent researchers of mortality due to its ability to provide biologically reasonable forecast. Previously, many researchers have proposed several multi-population stochastic mortality models that they considered adequate to produce accurate life expectancy. However, little have been addressed of the variability in full ages and time, which can contribute to an erroneous estimation of life expectancy. Therefore, this study proposed a new multi-population O’Hare with ARIMA, ARIMA-GARCH and ANN in forecasting the mortality rate for male and female in Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, USA, UK, Canada, and Switzerland. Multi-population O’Hare was used as a reference model, whilst ARIMA, ARIMA-GARCH and ANN were incorporated to the reference model to forecast the mortality rates. The adequacy of the proposed model was assessed by using measurement errors which were Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The results showed by multi-population O’Hare with ARIMA-GARCH gave the best forecasting performance for Taiwan, Japan, Australia, USA, UK, Canada, and Switzerland. On the other hand, multi-population O’Hare with ARIMA gave the best forecasting performance for Malaysia, whereas multi-population O’Hare with ANN gave the best forecasting performance for Hong Kong.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".