MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2722840368 · doi:10.4157/ejgeo.10.18

Abolition of the Long-form Census Questionnaire and its Consequences in Canada

2015· article· en· W2722840368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Taro Oishi

Bibliographic record

VenueE-journal GEO · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusDemographyPsychologyGeographyFamily medicineGerontologyMedicineHistorySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

近年,欧米諸国において国勢調査(センサス)の調査方法の転換が進んでいる.本稿では,カナダの2011年国勢調査における詳細調査票の廃止とその影響を解説することを目的とする.カナダ政府は2010年6月,プライバシー保護を理由に,それまで回答が義務づけられていた詳細調査票の廃止を決定した.それに代わって導入された全国世帯調査は回答が任意であり,回収率はカナダ全土で68.6%にとどまった.したがって標本に偏りがある可能性が高く,データの質は従来よりも低下し,時系列的変化の分析も不可能になった.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE-journal GEOSame topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207