Accuracy of matching residential postal codes to census geography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postal codes are often the only geographic identifier available to match subjects in a health dataset to census geography. This paper describes the characteristics of postal codes reported by the Canadian population on the census and, as an indicator of geocoding accuracy, the proportion that are linked to a single dissemination area (DA). DATA AND METHODS: Postal codes reported on the 2016 Census questionnaire were matched to a combination of the Postal Code Conversion File (PCCF) and the Postal Code Conversion File Plus (PCCF+ version 7B) (reference date November 2018) to calculate population-weighted counts and the number of matches to DAs by province or territory, delivery mode type (DMT), population centre or rural area size, and census metropolitan area. The number of single matches to census tracts (CTs), census subdivisions (CSDs) and census divisions (CDs) was also calculated. RESULTS: In Canada, 72.6% of the population reported postal codes that matched to a single DA. This proportion was higher in urban cores (87.1%) and among postal codes for an urban street address (DMT=A) (85.3%) or apartment building (DMT=B) (95.3%), and was lower in rural areas (26.2% to 38.1%) and among rural postal codes (13.9%). In comparison, 89.3% and 95.4% of the population reported postal codes matching to a single CSD or CD, respectively, while 92.1% of the population that live within CT boundaries were matched to a single CT. DISCUSSION: Matching postal codes to census geography is relatively accurate and frequently one to one in urban centres. In rural areas and for some types of postal code DMTs, alternative approaches to using the PCCF and PCCF+ for attaching census geography might be explored.
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 | 0.010 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".