MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046970120 · doi:10.21307/stattrans-2020-039

Applying data synthesis for longitudinal business data across three countries

2020· article· en· W3046970120 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Transition New Series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)ConfidentialityPublicationIdentification (biology)Profiling (computer programming)Aggregate data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data on businesses collected by statistical agencies are challenging to protect. Many businesses have unique characteristics, and distributions of employment, sales, and profits are highly skewed. Attackers wishing to conduct identification attacks often have access to much more information than for any individual. As a consequence, most disclosure avoidance mechanisms fail to strike an acceptable balance between usefulness and confidentiality protection. Detailed aggregate statistics by geography or detailed industry classes are rare, public-use microdata on businesses are virtually inexistant, and access to confidential microdata can be burdensome. Synthetic microdata have been proposed as a secure mechanism to publish microdata, as part of a broader discussion of how to provide broader access to such data sets to researchers. In this article, we document an experiment to create analytically valid synthetic data, using the exact same model and methods previously employed for the United States, for data from two different countries: Canada (Longitudinal Employment Analysis Program (LEAP)) and Germany (Establishment History Panel (BHP)). We assess utility and protection, and provide an assessment of the feasibility of extending such an approach in a cost-effective way to other data.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in Transition New SeriesSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207