MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W112928517

Canadian community health survey--methodological overview.

2002· article· en· W112928517 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProxy (statistics)Data collectionCommunity healthInterviewSurvey data collectionSampling designSampling (signal processing)Survey researchSurvey methodologySample (material)Sample size determinationData scienceGeographyEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicineStatisticsComputer sciencePublic healthSociologyApplied psychologyTelecommunicationsNursingMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article describes the design, sampling strategy, interviewing procedures, data collection and processing of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). SUMMARY: Data collection for cycle 1.1 of the CCHS began in September 2000. This first cycle provides cross-sectional data at the regional level for 136 health regions; the first half of data collected for cycle 1.1 provides data for 133 health regions. In addition to the survey methods, this article reports the sample size and rates of proxy response and non-response for each province, for the first six months of cycle 1.1. A summary of methods used to impute values that were not provided by proxy respondents is provided. A discussion of survey errors and their sources follows.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.604
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.105 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it