MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921623108 · doi:10.1111/cag.12065

<scp>W</scp>hy do we still need a census? Views from the age of “truthiness” and the “death of evidence”

2014· article· en· W1921623108 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of LethbridgeWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusMultidisciplinary approachAmerican Community SurveyGeographyPolitical scienceDemographyRegional scienceSociologyLawPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This viewpoint reports on a multidisciplinary panel held at the 2012 CAG/Congress meeting that brought together a number of researchers with important expertise on census‐related issues. They were asked to tackle the question: “Why do we still need a census?” Their presentations generated dialogue based on both Canadian and international experiences with recent changes in census data collection approaches. The article presents some cautionary observations regarding “the death of evidence” in an age of politicized “truthiness.”

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.209 · 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