Longitudinal child data: What can be gained by linking administrative data and cohort data?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Linked administrative data sets are an emerging tool for studying the health and well-being of the population. Previous papers have described methods for linking Canadian data, although few have specifically focused on children, nor have they described linkage between tax outcomes and a cohort of children who are particularly at risk for poor financial outcomes. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: This paper describes a probabilistic linkage performed by Statistics Canada linking the Montreal Longitudinal Experimental Study (MLES) and the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children (QLSKC) survey cohorts and administrative tax data from 1992 through 2012. RESULTS: The number of valid cases in the original cohort file with valid tax records was approximately 84%. Rates of false positives, false negatives, sensitivity, and specificity of the linkage were all acceptable. Using the linked file, the relationship of childhood behavioural indicators and adult income can be investigated in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative methods for creating longitudinal datasets on children will assist in examining long-term outcomes associated with early childhood risk and protective factors as well as an evidence base for interventions that promote child well-being and positive outcomes.
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 | 0.137 | 0.371 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".