Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19’s effects on mortality are hard to quantify. Issues with attribution can cause problems with resulting conclusions. Analyzing excess mortality addresses this concern and allows for the analysis of broader effects of the pandemic. We propose separate ARIMA models to analyze excess mortality for several countries. For the model of joint excess mortality, we suggest vine copulas with Bayesian pair copula selection. This is a new methodology and after its discussion we offer an illustration. The present study examines weekly mortality data from 2019 to 2022 in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Previously proposed ARIMA models have low lags and no residual autocorrelation. Only Norway’s residuals exhibited normality, while the remaining residuals suggest skewed Student t-distributions as a plausible fit. A vine copula model was then developed to model the association between the ARIMA residuals for different countries, with the countries farther apart geographically exhibiting weak or no association. The validity of fitted distributions and resulting vine copula was checked using 2023 data. Goodness of fit tests suggest that the fitted distributions were suitable, except for the USA, and that the vine copula used was also valid. We conclude that the time series models of COVID-19 excess mortality are viable. Overall, the suggested methodology seems suitable for creating joint forecasts of pandemic mortality for several countries or geographical regions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".