cchsflow: an open science approach to transform and combine population health surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) is one of the world's largest ongoing cross-sectional population health surveys, with over 130,000 respondents every two years or over 1.1 million respondents since its inception in 2001. While the survey remains relatively consistent over the years, there are differences between cycles that pose a challenge to analyze the survey over time. INTERVENTION: A program package called cchsflow was developed to transform and harmonize CCHS variables to consistent formats across multiple survey cycles. An open science approach was used to maintain transparency, reproducibility and collaboration. OUTCOMES: The cchsflow R package uses CCHS survey data between 2001 and 2014. Worksheets were created that identify variables, their names in previous cycles, their category structure, and their final variable names. These worksheets were then used to recode variables in each CCHS cycle into consistently named and labelled variables. Following, survey cycles can be combined. The package was then added as a GitHub repository to encourage collaboration with other researchers. IMPLICATION: The cchsflow package has been added to the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) and contains support for over 160 CCHS variables, generating a combined data set of over 1 million respondents. By implementing open science practices, cchsflow aims to minimize the amount of time needed to clean and prepare data for the many CCHS users across Canada.
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 | 0.233 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".