Testing spatial out-of-sample area of influence for grain forecasting models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examine the factors that determine if a grain forecasting model fit to one region can be transferred to another region. Prior research has proposed examining the area of applicability (AoA) of a model based on structurally similar characteristics in the Earth Observation predictors and weights based on the model derived feature importance. We expand on and evaluate this approach in the context of grain yield forecasting in Sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, we evaluate an AoA methodology established for generating raster surfaces and apply it to vector supported grain data. We fit a series of ensemble tree models both within single countries and across multiple sets of countries and then test those models in countries excluded from the training set. We then calculate and decompose AoA measures and examine several different performance metrics. We find that the spatial transfer accuracy does not vary across season but does vary by average rainfall and across high, medium, and low yielding regions. In general, areas with higher yields and medium to high average rainfall tend to have higher accuracy for both model training and transfer. Finally, we find that fitting models with multiple countries provides more accurate out-of-sample estimates when compared to models fitted to a single country.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it