Does a 1991 model get the timing of a forest pest right?

✓ Numbers check out

-0.0457 model setting, the paper

-0.045599 model setting, the Lab

Counts as holding up

The code and data produced the same result. That doesn't prove the study's method is right.

The write-up for this result is on its way. The verdict and numbers above are final.

What the paper said: Original -0.0457, logit. Table 2 of the ReScience C article
What we got: -0.045599
Whose code ran: Independent rebuild
What forecasters thought: 50% expected it to hold up when forecasting closed. The forecast price never changes the verdict.
Proof: Read the receipt or see claim 22

What we didn't check

Whether the sample was fair or large enough.
Whether test data leaked into training or tuning.
Whether the result holds on new data.
Whether the study's method was the right one for its question.

Community notes

Notes are people's own words, kept on the blockchain. They never change a verdict, and the Lab's AI never reads them. Posting costs a little NEAR for storage, and what isn't used comes back.