MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Neighbourhood Effects on Health and Well-being (NEHW) study

2014· article· en· W2043753614 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth & Place · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Science Research Council
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)Observational studyCross-sectional studySampling designPsychologyEnvironmental healthGeographyMedicinePopulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many cross-sectional studies of neighbourhood effects on health do not employ strong study design elements. The Neighbourhood Effects on Health and Well-being (NEHW) study, a random sample of 2412 English-speaking Toronto residents (age 25-64), utilises strong design features for sampling neighbourhoods and individuals, characterising neighbourhoods using a variety of data sources, measuring a wide range of health outcomes, and for analysing cross-level interactions. We describe here methodological issues that shaped the design and analysis features of the NEHW study to ensure that, while a cross-sectional sample, it will advance the quality of evidence emerging from observational studies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.331 · 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