Linking National Immigration Data to Provincial Repositories: The case of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian health data repositories link datasets at the provincial level, based on their residents' registrations to provincial health insurance plans. Linking national datasets with provincial health care registries poses several challenges that may result in misclassification and impact the estimation of linkage rates. A recent linkage of a federal immigration database in the province of Manitoba illustrates these challenges. OBJECTIVES: a) To describe the linkage of the federal Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Permanent Resident (IRCC-PR) database with the Manitoba healthcare registry and b) compare data linkage methods and rates between four Canadian provinces accounting for interprovincial mobility of immigrants. METHODS: We compared linkage rates by immigrant's province of intended destination (province vs. rest of Canada). We used external nationwide immigrant tax filing records to approximate actual settlement and obtain linkage rates corrected for interprovincial mobility. RESULTS: The immigrant linkage rates in Manitoba before and after accounting for interprovincial mobility were 84.8% and 96.1, respectively. Linkage rates did not substantially differ according to immigrants' characteristics, with a few exceptions. Observed linkage rates across the four provinces ranged from 74.0% to 86.7%. After correction for interprovincial mobility, the estimated linkage rates increased > 10 percentage points for the provinces that stratified by intended destination (British Columbia and Manitoba) and decreased up to 18 percentage points for provinces that could not use immigration records of those who did not intend to settle in the province (New Brunswick and Ontario). CONCLUSIONS: Despite variations in methodology, provincial linkage rates were relatively high. The use of a national immigration dataset for linkage to provincial repositories allows a more comprehensive linkage than that of province-specific subsets. Observed linkage rates can be biased downwards by interprovincial migration, and methods that use external data sources can contribute to assessing potential selection bias and misclassification.
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 | 0.033 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".