The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictive Model Assessment for Count Data
Open accessAbstract
SummaryWe discuss tools for the evaluation of probabilistic forecasts and the critique of statistical models for count data. Our proposals include a nonrandomized version of the probability integral transform, marginal calibration diagrams, and proper scoring rules, such as the predictive deviance. In case studies, we critique count regression models for patent data, and assess the predictive performance of Bayesian age‐period‐cohort models for larynx cancer counts in Germany. The toolbox applies in Bayesian or classical and parametric or nonparametric settings and to any type of ordered discrete outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Probabilistic Forecasts, Calibration and Sharpness
Gneiting, T., Balabdaoui, F., & Raftery, A. E. (2007) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00587.x · Cited by 1,783
Self-citationDawid, A. P. (1984) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2981683 · Cited by 1,085 · cited 2×
“Hence, forecasts ought to be probabilistic in nature, taking the form of probability distributions over future quantities and events (Dawid, 1984).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGood, I. J. (1952) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1952.tb00104.x · Cited by 976
Econometric Analysis of Count Data
Winkelmann, R. (2003) · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24728-9 · Cited by 945
Spatial modelling of claim frequency and claim size in non-life insurance
Gschlößl, S., & Czado, C. (2007) · Scandinavian Actuarial Journal · doi:10.1080/03461230701414764 · Cited by 96
Self-citation
Cited by
Rue, H., Martino, S., & Chopin, N. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2008.00700.x · Cited by 5,279
Unravelling the predictive power of telematics data in car insurance pricing
Verbelen, R., Antonio, K., & Claeskens, G. (2018) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics · doi:10.1111/rssc.12283 · Cited by 126
Citation impact was highly variable for reporting guidelines of health research: a citation analysis
Caulley, L., Cheng, W., Catalá-López, F., Whelan, J., Khoury, M., Ferraro, J., Husereau, D., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.013 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Czado, C., Gneiting, T., & Held, L.
- Venue
- Biometrics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-11-23
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1254-1261
- ISSN
- 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0420
- OpenAlex
- W1983125795
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 13.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predictive Model Assessment for Count Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01191.x
- The paper
- Czado, C., Gneiting, T., & Held, L. (2009). Predictive Model Assessment for Count Data. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01191.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
