Evaluation of the coverage of linked Canadian Community Health Survey and hospital inpatient records.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the coverage that results from linking routinely collected administrative hospital data with survey data is an important preliminary to undertaking analyses based on the linked file. DATA AND METHODS: To evaluate the coverage of the linkage between data from cycle 1.1 of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) and inpatient hospital data (Health Person-Oriented Information or HPOI), the number of people admitted to hospital according to HPOI was compared with the weighted estimate for CCHS respondents who were successfully linked to HPOI. Differences between HPOI and the linked and weighted CCHS estimate indicated linkage failure and/or undercoverage. RESULTS: According to HPOI, from September 2000 through November 2001, 1,572,343 people (outside Quebec) aged 12 or older were hospitalized. Weighted estimates from the linked CCHS, adjusted for agreement to link and plausible health number, were 7.7% lower. Coverage rates were similar for males and females. Provincial rates did not differ from those for the rest of Canada, although differences were apparent for the territories. Coverage rates were significantly lower among people aged 75 or older than among those aged 12 to 74.
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 | 0.022 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".