Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many of the challenges and opportunities of data science have to do with dynamic factors: a growing volume of administrative and commercial data on individuals and establishments, continuous flows of data and the capacity to analyze and summarize them in real time, and the necessity for resources to maintain them. With its emphasis on data quality and supportable results, the practice of Official Statistics faces a variety of statistical and data science issues. This article discusses the importance of population frames and their maintenance; the potential for use of multi‐frame methods and linkages; how the use of large scale non‐survey data may shape the objects of inference; the complexity of models for large data sets; the importance of recursive methods and regularization; and the benefits of sophisticated spatial visualization tools in capturing spatial variation and temporal change.The Canadian Journal of Statistics46: 10–23; 2018 © 2017 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.059 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".