Ensemble <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si10.svg" display="inline" id="d1e331"> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> : Scenarios ensembling for communication and performance analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, scenario modeling played a crucial role in shaping the decision-making process of public health policies. Unlike forecasts, scenario projections rely on specific assumptions about the future that consider different plausible states-of-the-world that may or may not realize and that depend on policy interventions, unpredictable changes in the epidemic outlook, etc. As a consequence, long-term scenario projections require different evaluation criteria than the ones used for traditional short-term epidemic forecasts. Here, we propose a novel ensemble procedure for assessing pandemic scenario projections using the results of the Scenario Modeling Hub (SMH) for COVID-19 in the US. By defining a “scenario ensemble” for each model and the ensemble of models, termed “Ensemble2”, we provide a synthesis of potential epidemic outcomes, which we use to assess projections’ performance, bypassing the identification of the most plausible scenario. We find that overall the Ensemble2 models are well-calibrated and provide better performance than the scenario ensemble of individual models. The ensemble procedure accounts for the full range of plausible outcomes and highlights the importance of scenario design and effective communication. The scenario ensembling approach can be extended to any scenario design strategy, with potential refinements including weighting scenarios and allowing the ensembling process to evolve over time.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".