MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407601723 · doi:10.1002/for.3261

Forecasting the Confirmed COVID‐19 Cases Using Modal Regression

2025· article· en· W4407601723 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forecasting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYonsei University
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ModalEconometricsRegression2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)StatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsVirologyMedicineInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study utilizes modal regression to forecast the cumulative confirmed COVID‐19 cases in Canada, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. The objective is to improve the accuracy of the forecasts compared to standard mean and median regressions. To evaluate the performance of the forecasts, we conduct simulations and introduce a metric called the coverage quantile function (CQF), which is optimized using modal regression. By applying modal regression to popular time‐series models for COVID‐19 data, we provide empirical evidence that the forecasts generated by the modal regression outperform those produced by the mean and median regressions in terms of the CQF. This finding addresses the limitations of the mean and median regression forecasts.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.602
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.111 · 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