Cited by 160Forecasting Techniques and ApplicationsSports Analytics and PerformanceElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Combining forecasts: An application to elections

Open access
Graefe, Andreas, Armstrong, J. Scott, Jones, Randall J., Cuzán, Alfred G.·2014·International Journal of Forecasting

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2013.02.005

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Combining forecasts has reduced errors from about 10% to 58% (depending on conditions) compared to the average errors of uncombined individual forecasts.

    “Combining forecasts has reduced errors from about 10% to 58% (depending on the conditions) compared to the average errors of the uncombined individual forecasts (Graefe, et al 2011).”

    From Illusions in Regression Analysis (2011) · cites this paper as Graefe, et al 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

11 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Graefe, A., Armstrong, J. S., Jones, R. J., & Cuzán, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University of Central Oklahoma (US)
  • University of West Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Graefe, Andreas
Venue
International Journal of Forecasting
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
43-54
ISSN
0169-2070 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008534646
Cited by
160
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
23.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Forecasting (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Sports Analytics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
forecast combination, election forecasting, US presidential election, expert opinion, Iowa Electronic Markets, forecast accuracy, forecast uncertainty, forecast averaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review