MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1447546779 · doi:10.3233/sji-140827

"Just get on with it." Linking data systems to report on infant mortality and the First Nations population in Manitoba (Canada)

2014· article· en· W1447546779 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brenda Elias, Laura Hart, P. C. H. Martens

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Journal of the IAOS · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsGeographyInfant mortalityEnvironmental healthDemographyPopulationMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The routine reporting of actionable statistics to improve system performance and prevent premature mortality has been promoted for decades. A key statistic produced nationally and globally is infant mortality. State governments define, collect and report vital events. In Canada, vital statistics is a provincial responsibility. The provinces, however, do not uniformly collect vital events for First Nations who are under Federal fiduciary responsibility or uniformly maintain a registration group field for disaggregation purposes. In 2008, Canada's Public Health Agency conceded that a lack of a First Nations identifier has obscured any understanding of First Nations perinatal health. Given these drivers of variability and the complex multi-jurisdictional vital statistics environments in which they occur, this paper demonstrates, using data linkage methods, a way to improve the estimation of infant mortality for the First Nations population in Manitoba, Canada. The method improved estimation, and demonstrated a persistent gap in infant mortality.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Journal of the IAOSSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207