Data Quality in an Information-Rich Environment: Canada as an Example
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review evaluates the quality of available administrative data in the Canadian provinces, emphasizing the information needed to create integrated systems. We explicitly compare approaches to quality measurement, indicating where record linkage can and cannot substitute for more expensive record re-abstraction. Forty-nine original studies evaluating Canadian administrative data (registries, hospital abstracts, physician claims, and prescription drugs) are summarized in a structured manner. Registries, hospital abstracts, and physician files appear to be generally of satisfactory quality, though much work remains to be done. Data quality did not vary systematically among provinces. Primary data collection to check place of residence and longitudinal follow-up in provincial registries is needed. Promising initial checks of pharmaceutical data should be expanded. Because record linkage studies were ''conservative'' in reporting reliability, the reduction of time-consuming record re-abstraction appears feasible in many cases. Finally, expanding the scope of administrative data to study health, as well as health care, seems possible for some chronic conditions. The research potential of the information-rich environments being created highlights the importance of data quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it