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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article documents the extent of proxy reporting in Statistics Canada's National Population Health Survey (NPHS) and explores associations between reporting status and the prevalence and incidence of selected health problems. DATA SOURCES: Data are from the household cross-sectional (1994/95, 1996/97 and 1998/99) and longitudinal (1994/95 to 2000/01) components of the NPHS. Supplemental data are from the 2000/01 Canadian Community Health Survey. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Estimates of health conditions from the two cross-sectional files that are produced for each NPHS cycle were compared. The file with the lower proxy reporting rate was expected to yield higher prevalence rates. Multivariate analyses of the longitudinal data were used to examine associations between changes in reporting status and the incidence of the selected conditions. MAIN RESULTS: Compared with the 1998/89 General file, in which proxy reporting was more common, the 1998/99 Health file yields higher estimates of certain health conditions. Declines in proxy reporting rates over time are generally associated with greater increases in estimates. Analyses based on the longitudinal file suggest that the incidence of some conditions may also be subject to a proxy effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it