MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392515953 · doi:10.1007/s42650-024-00080-6

Models for Estimating Intrinsic r and the Mean Age of a Population at Stability: Evaluations at the National and Sub-national Level

2024· article· en· W4392515953 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
David A. Swanson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia UniversityConcordia University of Edmonton
KeywordsStability (learning theory)StatisticsDemographyEconometricsPopulationMathematicsGeographyComputer scienceSociologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using Canada’s provinces and territories in conjunction with the “Cohort Change Ratio” approach to generating a stable population, I test the accuracy of two regression models constructed from national-level data designed to estimate two factors of a population at stability from initial conditions at the sub-national levels: (1) its constant rate of change, denoted here by r' ; and (2) mean population age. In a test of accuracy at the national level I find that these models provide reasonably accurate estimates. In the tests at the subnational level, the accuracy, as expected, is less, but the results indicate that the national level models provide estimates that are useful. The models are useful because they are tractable and provide information not available from the traditional analytical approaches. Evaluating these models also provides the opportunity to look at Canada’s provinces and territories from a stable population perspective. The findings support the use of: (1) The Cohort Change Ratio approach in examining stable population concepts; and (2) the two regression models for estimating r' and the mean age of a population at stability. They also show that there are connections between initial conditions and stability that have been overlooked. This knowledge gap may be due to the fact that widespread knowledge and acceptance of the ergodic nature of the “age structure factor,” have served to mask the possibility that ergodicity does not always apply to other factors. Further exploration of these potential linkages appears to be in order.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207