The Comparison and Evaluation of Forecasters.¶
DeGroot, M. H., & Fienberg, S. E. (1983). The Comparison and Evaluation of Forecasters. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D (The Statistician), 32(1), 12-22.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Confidence Annotation
- The calibration loop is where the formal content lives and is what distinguishes a working annotation from ornamentation: over many forecasts, one bins predictions by their stated probability and checks that of all days assigned \(p = 0.3\), close to 30% actually had rain.
This sourceDefines calibration (reliability) of probability forecasts — of events assigned p, a fraction p occur — and the reliability-diagram apparatus.
- The calibration loop is where the formal content lives and is what distinguishes a working annotation from ornamentation: over many forecasts, one bins predictions by their stated probability and checks that of all days assigned \(p = 0.3\), close to 30% actually had rain.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:c5886b38407b · see in the full table