MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944405744 · doi:10.14288/1.0048523

Summary report of the incidence and prevalence of worker injury and subsequent outcomes in British Columbia : a record linkage study

2014· preprint· en· W1944405744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clyde Hertzman, Kimberlyn McGrail, Robert Douglas Hirtle

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryIdentifierMerge (version control)Record linkageMedicineLinkage (software)Unique identifierBusinessFamily medicineDemographyGeographyEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceComputer sciencePopulationSociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting in June, 1997, the Workers' Compensation Board ofBC made available computerized records of all injured workers claims, from 1986 to 1996, to the UBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research. These files gave information on each successful claim: short-term disability, long-term disability (pension), fatality, or health care only, as well as the fact and date of all unsuccessful or incomplete claims. Using "personal identifier fields" from these files, staff at the Centre managed to "link" 97.2% of these claims to the BC Linked Health Database. The BC Linked Health Data set (BCLHD), developed under contract with the BC Ministry of Health, makes 6 key transaction files in the province "linkable" to one another for the purposes of research. These currently include: the birth file, the death file, Medical Services Plan claims file, hospital discharge file, long-term care client file, and the Pharmacare A plan file (i. e. the provincial drug payment plan for those BC residents over 65 years of age). All records in each file, going back to fiscal year 1985/86, have been encrypted with a scrambled Personal Health Number (PHN) which matches the (scrambled) PHN of a unique individual in the Linkage Co-ordinating File of those enrolled in the Medical Services Plan of BC.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207