MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154701217 · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-15

An overview of the statistical methods reported by studies using the Canadian community health survey

2014· review· en· W2154701217 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEData scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) is a cross-sectional survey that has collected information on health determinants, health status and the utilization of the health system in Canada since 2001. Several hundred articles have been written utilizing the CCHS dataset. Previous analyses of statistical methods utilized in the literature have focused on a particular journal or set of journals to understand the statistical literacy required for understanding the published research. In this study, we describe the statistical methods referenced in the published literature utilizing the CCHS dataset(s). METHODS: A descriptive study was undertaken of references published in Medline, Embase, Web of Knowledge and Scopus associated with the CCHS. These references were imported into a Java application utilizing the searchable Apache Lucene text database and screened based upon pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text PDF articles that met the inclusion criteria were then used for the identification of descriptive, elementary and regression statistical methods referenced in these articles. The identification of statistical methods occurred through an automated search of key words on the full-text articles utilizing the Java application. RESULTS: We identified 4811 references from the 4 bibliographical databases for possible inclusion. After exclusions, 663 references were used for the analysis. Descriptive statistics such as means or proportions were presented in a majority of the articles (97.7%). Elementary-level statistics such as t-tests were less frequently referenced (29.7%) than descriptive statistics. Regression methods were frequently referenced in the articles: 79.8% of articles contained reference to regression in general with logistic regression appearing most frequently in 67.1% of the articles. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a diverse set of analysis methods being referenced in the CCHS literature, however, the literature heavily relies on only a subset of all possible statistical tools. This information can be used in identifying gaps in statistical methods that could be applied to future analysis of public health surveys, insight into training and educational programs, and also identifies the level of statistical literacy needed to understand the published literature.

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)0.909
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.920
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.9090.920
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.984
GPT teacher head0.818
Teacher spread0.166 · 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