Monthly Pork Price Prediction Applying Projection Pursuit Regression: Modeling, Empirical Research, Comparison, and Sustainability Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The drastic fluctuations in pork prices directly affect the sustainable development of pig farming, agriculture, and feed processing industries, reducing people’s happiness and sense of gain. Although there have been extensive studies on pork price prediction and early warning in the literature, some problems still need further study. Based on the monthly time series data of pork prices and other 11 influencing prices (variables) such as beef, hog, piglet, etc., in China from January 2000 to November 2023, we have established a project pursuit auto-regression (PPAR) and a hybrid PPAR (H-PPAR) model. The results of the PPAR model study show that the monthly pork prices in the lagged periods one to three have an important impact on the current monthly pork price. The first lagged period has the largest and most positive impact. The second lagged period has the second and a negative impact. We built the H-PPAR model using the 11 independent variables (prices), including the prices of corn, hog, mutton, hen’s egg, and beef in lagged period one, the piglet’s price in lagged period six, and by deleting non-important variables. The results of the H-PPAR model show that the hog price in lagged period one is the most critical factor, and beef price and the other six influencing variables are essential factors. The model’s performance metrics show that the PPAR and H-PPAR models outperform approaches such as support vector regression, error backpropagation neural network, dynamic model average, etc., and possess better suitability, applicability, and reliability. Our results forecast the changing trend of the monthly pork price and provide policy insights for administrators and pig farmers to control and adjust the monthly pork price and further enhance the health and sustainable development of the hog farming industry.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".