Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Currently, most academic research involving the mortality modeling of multiple populations mainly focuses on factor‐based approaches. Increasingly, these models are enriched with socio‐economic determinants. Yet these emerging mortality models come with little attention to interpretable spatial model features. Such features could be highly valuable to demographers and old‐age benefit providers in need of a comprehensive understanding of the impact of economic growth on mortality across space. To address this, we propose and investigate a family of models that extend the seminal Li‐Lee factor‐based stochastic mortality modeling framework to include both economic growth, as measured by the real gross domestic product (GDP), and spatial patterns of the contiguous United States mortality. Model selection performed on the introduced new class of spatial models shows that based on the AIC criteria, the introduced spatial lag of GDP with GDP (SLGG) model had the best fit. The out‐of‐sample forecast performance of SLGG model is shown to be more accurate than the well‐known Li–Lee model. When it comes to model implications, a comparison of annuity pricing across space revealed that the SLGG model admits more regional pricing differences compared to the Li‐Lee model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".