Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic created abnormal credit risk conditions that did not align well with pre-2020 credit scores. Since the pandemic, most organizations have either excluded the period 2020–2021 from their modeling or included it without adjustment, leaving it as noise in the data. Model validators and examiners have been divided about requiring one of these approaches or defaulting to model developer judgment. None of this is ideal from a model development perspective. This paper presents a unique technical solution that allows for the inclusion of pandemic data while constructing credit scores and actually produces scores that perform better and have long-term stability across the entire economic cycle. This result negates the common belief that credit scores must be frequently rebuilt in order to maintain rank order accuracy. This analysis uses lifecycle and environment outputs from an Age-Period-Cohort analysis as fixed offsets to credit score development. Panel data is used, so the credit score is developed with a discrete time survival model approach. Logistic regression and stochastic gradient boosted regression trees were tested as estimators with the panel data and APC inputs.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".