Working More Productively: Tools for Administrative Data
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
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a web-based resource (http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp/concept/) that contains a series of tools for working with administrative data. This work in knowledge management represents an effort to document, find, and transfer concepts and techniques, both within the local research group and to a more broadly defined user community. Concepts and associated computer programs are made as "modular" as possible to facilitate easy transfer from one project to another. STUDY SETTING/DATA SOURCES: Tools to work with a registry, longitudinal administrative data, and special files (survey and clinical) from the Province of Manitoba, Canada in the 1990-2003 period. DATA COLLECTION: Literature review and analyses of web site utilization were used to generate the findings. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The Internet-based Concept Dictionary and SAS macros developed in Manitoba are being used in a growing number of research centers. Nearly 32,000 hits from more than 10,200 hosts in a recent month demonstrate broad interest in the Concept Dictionary. CONCLUSIONS: The tools, taken together, make up a knowledge repository and research production system that aid local work and have great potential internationally. Modular software provides considerable efficiency. The merging of documentation and researcher-to-researcher dissemination keeps costs manageable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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