MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065280310 · doi:10.1177/0002716212463313

Can Administrative Records Be Used to Reduce Nonresponse Bias?

2012· article· en· W2065280310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John L. Czajka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData qualityAgency (philosophy)Current Population SurveyQuality (philosophy)Survey data collectionPopulationComputer scienceBusinessStatisticsMedicineEnvironmental healthService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One option for addressing the bias that may result from survey nonresponse is to make greater use of the administrative records that federal and state agencies compile. Such records have been used to assess response bias but less often to correct for such error. Direct substitution of administrative records for survey data, as is done for income data in Canada, provides a means of compensating for survey nonresponse; but the limitations of such data must be recognized. Administrative records may not cover the entire population of interest, may utilize a different unit of observation, may have wide variation in data quality across items or by agency, and may have timeliness issues. In using administrative records, researchers cede control over the content of individual variables, which may differ from survey concepts and be subject to change. Furthermore, privacy protections embodied in law restrict the use of many types of administrative records.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.439
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.808
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4390.808
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.019
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.426
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.037 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207