MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133334715 · doi:10.1177/070674370505001002

The Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-Being

2005· article· en· W2133334715 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthData collectionInterviewCommunity healthPsychologyNational Health Interview SurveyGerontologyMental illnessSample (material)MedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthPublic healthNursingSociologySocial sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) biennial strategy, the provincial survey component of the first CCHS cycle (Cycle 1.2) focused on different aspects of the mental health and well-being of Canadians living in private dwellings. Moreover, the survey collected data on prevalences of specific mental disorders and problems, use of mental health services, and economic and personal costs of having a mental illness. Data collection began in May 2002 and extended over 8 months. More than 85% of all interviews were conducted face-to-face and used a computer-assisted application. The survey obtained a national response rate of 77%. This paper describes several key aspects of the questionnaire content, the sample design, interviewer training, and data collection procedures. A brief overview of the CCHS regional component (Cycle 1.1) is also given.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0170.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.306 · 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