MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229858558 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14639961

Spatio-Temporal Multi-Criteria Analysis - Conceptual Challenges and Application to Health Service Planning

2021· preprint· en· W4229858558 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Young, Niklaus Ashton, Claus Rinner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilitySocioeconomic statusIndex (typography)StandardizationComposite indexConceptual frameworkHealth careService (business)Service delivery frameworkPopulationGeographyComputer scienceEconometricsBusinessMedicineSociologyEconomic growthEnvironmental healthMarketingEconomicsMathematicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population health is influenced by many socioeconomic and demographic factors that may include levels of employment, income, education, ethnicity and age. For health planning and service delivery, it is important to take into account demographic trends over time. This temporal component is usually incorporated into analyses by comparing multiple maps of variables at different points in time. In this study demographic variables with spatial and temporal components are used in a multi-criteria analysis within an interactive spatial decision support tool. We illustrate how the exploration of an area-based composite index over time can help analysts with identifying trends of increasing social deprivation and health-care needs. The paper focuses on the conceptual challenges of spatio-temporal multi-criteria analysis due to changing geographic boundaries, the standardization of variables across time, comparability of variables, and comparability of index scores.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207