MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184259313

NEW COLLECTION METHODOLOGY IN THE 2006 CENSUS OF POPULATION

2007· article· en· W2184259313 on OpenAlexaffabout
Limei Sun, Laurent Roy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusData collectionPopulationThe InternetGeographyComputer scienceDemographyStatisticsWorld Wide WebMathematicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several new collection methods were implemented in the 2006 Census of Population. For the first time, a block canvass operation was performed to update the Address Register, which made it feasible to mail the questionnaires through Canada Post to 70% of households across Canada. Completed questionnaires were mailed back to a central data processing centre where they were scanned and subjected to automated editing for completeness. Failed edit follow-ups were done from three Census Help Line Centres. The 2006 Census also provided the option for respondents to complete their questionnaires on the Internet. These new methods and some results will be discussed.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207