MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cohort profile: The Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohorts (CanCHECs)

2019· article· en· W3013489322 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Tjepkema, Tanya Christidis, Tracey Bushnik, Lauren Pinault

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusGeographySocioeconomic statusPopulationAmerican Community SurveyRecord linkageHealth careEnvironmental healthData collectionDemographyCohortPopulation healthMedicineStatisticsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohorts (CanCHECs) are population-based linked datasets of the household population at the time of census collection. The CanCHECs combine data from respondents to the long-form census or the National Household Survey between 1991 and 2011 with administrative health data (e.g., mortality, cancer incidence, hospitalizations, emergency ambulatory care) and annual mailing address postal codes. The CanCHEC datasets are rich national data resources that can be used to measure and examine health inequalities across socioeconomic and ethnocultural dimensions for different periods and locations. These datasets can also be used to examine the effects of exposure to environmental factors on human health. Because of their large size, the CanCHECs are an excellent resource for examining rare health outcomes and small population groups. They are ideally suited for environmental health research because of their geographic coverage across all regions of Canada, their long follow-up periods and their linkage to annual postal code history.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207