MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239805625 · doi:10.1002/asi.20458

The impact of survey data: Measuring success

2006· article· en· W4239805625 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationData scienceComputer scienceScope (computer science)CitationProcess (computing)World Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large national social surveys are expensive to conduct and to process into usable data files. The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of these national data sets on research using bibliometric measures. Peer‐reviewed articles from research using numeric data files and documentation from the Canadian National Population Health Survey (NPHS) were searched in ISI's Web of Science and in Scopus for articles citing the original research. This article shows that articles using NPHS data files and products have been used by a diverse and global network of scholars, practitioners, methodologists, and policy makers. Shifts in electronic publishing and the emergence of new tools for citation analysis are changing the discovery process for published and unpublished work based on inputs to the research process. Evidence of use of large surveys throughout the knowledge transfer process can be critical in assessing grant and operating funding levels for research units, and in influencing design, methodology, and access channels in planning major surveys. The project has gathered citations from the peer‐reviewed article stage of knowledge transfer, providing valuable evidence on the use of the data files and methodologies of the survey and of limitations of the survey. Further work can be done to expand the scope of material cited and analyze the data to understand how the longitudinal aspect of the survey contributes to the value of the research output. Building a case for continued funding of national, longitudinal surveys is a challenge. As far as I am aware, however, little use has been made of citation tracking to assess the long‐term value of such surveys. Conducting citation analysis on research inputs (data file use and survey products) provides a tangible assessment of the value accrued from large‐scale (and expensive) national surveys.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.293 · 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