Alberta Adverse Childhood Experiences Survey 2013 (ACE 2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2013 Alberta Adverse Child Experiences survey is a computer-assisted telephone survey of 1200 Albertan adults designed to assess Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). It is a portion of the 2013 Alberta Survey (doi:10.7939/DVN/10573) conducted by the Population Research Lab, and commissioned by PolicyWise for Children & Families (formerly the Alberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research). Eight questions about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) were derived from the original ACE checklist administered through Kaiser Permanente. Questions were modified to reflect the Alberta, Canada environment, the emerging literature on child development, and to be acceptable for a telephone survey. Question modifications included deleting a question about having a parent incarcerated, and adding a question on living with a household member with a chronic medical condition. Questions were pilot tested. Three questions covered abuse, and the remaining five focused on aspects of household risk that can increase dysfunction. These metadata are also available through SAGE's searchable metadata website: http://sagemetadata.policywise.com/nada/index.php/catalog/3
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".