Technical Papers in Support of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) is one of the largest epidemiologic studies of dementia conducted to date, with over 100 papers published or in press. The first (prevalence) phase data collection began in 1991, and the second (incidence) phase was completed in 1996. Publication of first and second phase data began in 1994 and 1998, respectively. The CSHA has contributed not only to our understanding of dementia, but also more broadly to the population health of elderly people. However, for those unfamiliar with the CSHA, gaining an understanding of the study's design and results has been difficult, due to the study's scope and complexity and necessarily brief descriptions of study methods in journal articles. Now, given the widespread availability of the data to the public at large and the research community, a comprehensive description of the study methods and data sets is desirable as a guide for potential users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.141 | 0.045 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".