MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1841925236 · doi:10.25336/p6vc8k

After the First Steps: The Evolution of the National Population Health Survey

2001· article· en· W1841925236 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Douglas Yeo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
FundersNational Health Insurance Service
KeywordsPopulation healthContext (archaeology)Longitudinal dataHealth careSample (material)Panel dataPopulationDemographic economicsEnvironmental healthMedicineGeographyEconomicsEconometricsEconomic growthDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many changes take place over the lifetime of a longitudinal panel survey. Changing priorities, new supplements, and conflicting demands are factors that may be unforeseen. The evolution of the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) since its first cycle in 1994/95 is discussed in this context. Statistics Canada contacts panel members every two years for twenty years, to estimate the health of Canadians and its determinants, health care use, and other characteristics. The NPHS was designed to provide both longitudinal and cross-sectional estimates, and to allow sample and content supplements. This paper describes the NPHS and the changes in focus needed to move the panel forward to cycle 2 and beyond.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207