THE CANADIAN LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON AGING: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging is following 50,000 men and women aged 45–85, every three years for at least 20 years. Of the total, 20,000 (Tracking participants) are randomly selected within age/sex strata in each province, and 30,000 (Comprehensive participants) are randomly selected within age/sex strata from within 25–50 km of 11 sites across the country (Victoria, Vancouver, Surrey, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Hamilton, Montreal, Sherbrooke, Halifax, and St. Johns). Data collection methods include telephone and face-to-face interviews, physical assessments, biological samples, and linkage to administrative databases. Initiated in 2010, the second wave of data collection is currently underway. The CLSA has engaged in a number of “firsts” in Canada. In this presentation we will highlight the study design and content, sampling, recruitment, baseline data collection, and ascertainment of health outcomes. Ethical legal and social issues, as well as accommodation strategies to improve retention in future waves will be presented.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".