Working More Productively: Tools for Administrative Data
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".