Comparative Analysis of Time Series Forecasting using ARIMA, and GRNNs Models: A Case Study of Death Rate of Diabetic Mellitus in Canada
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
This research aims to compare ARIMA and GRNN models alone. For this comparison the death rate for diabetes mellitus time series data of Canada is used. Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), and Generalized Regression Neural Networks (GRNN) models were applied for time series prediction of the death rate for diabetes mellitus—trained data for two models from 2000 to 2015. Test data was used to compare the precision through data from 2016 to 2021. The ARIMA model was applied using the auto-command through R package which provided the least BIC and AIC values. The mean absolute deviation (MAD), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were employed to measure the forecasting efficiency of the models. The ARIMA model had the highest prediction accuracy as compared to the GRNN model. ARIMA predicts the death rate for diabetes mellitus more accurately and robustly compared to the GRNNs 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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