MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096152404 · doi:10.1017/s1041610202007949

An Overview of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging

2001· article· en· W2096152404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian McDowell, Gerry Hill, Joan Lindsay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyCohort studyCohortSample (material)Data collectionMedicinePsychologySociologyDiseaseSocial sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Study of Health and Aging is a multicenter, population-based cohort study of dementia with a sample of 10,263 participants aged 65 or over. Field work began in 1991, and a follow-up study was undertaken in 1996-97. The present article describes the origins and objectives of the study, provides an overview of its design, organization, and data collection methods, and offers a brief summary of the main results.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0230.054
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207