MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the Boundaries of Web Map Services: The Example of the Online Injury Atlas for Ontario

2011· article· en· W1873786287 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claus Rinner, Byron Moldofsky, Michael D. Cusimano, Sean Marshall, Tony Hernández

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisLicenseConfidentialityGeocodingBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Data sciencePublic healthPrivate sectorGeographyComputer securityCartographyComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Injury from causes such as falls, traffic accidents, or violence is a major public health issue globally. Injury prevention research aims to identify vulnerable populations and places by analyzing the spatial patterns of demographic and socio‐economic risk factors associated with elevated injury rates. The stakeholders in injury prevention and control are often distributed across government and public health institutions, non‐profits, and even the private sector (e.g. insurance firms). While this situation calls for distributed, online research tools, their implementation may conflict with health data confidentiality and license limitations for socio‐economic data. In this article, we present the Online Injury Atlas for Ontario, which was designed with the explicit goal of making use of, and contributing to, the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure. We propose a service‐based architecture that integrates publicly accessible map services with protected data layers. Thereby, we demonstrate the benefits of using spatial data infrastructures alongside private data at different levels of protection. In addition, we discuss the extensive data processing needs and specific cartographic design requirements of a Web atlas in the health and social sciences domain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.173 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207