MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Administrative Databases

2015· other· en· W4241522336 on OpenAlexaff
Leslíe L. Roos, Nathan Nickel, Patrick S. Romano, Patricia Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrengths and weaknessesDatabasePopulationData scienceGeographyComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Administrative databases are often used to manage systems or to investigate research questions. The data may be derived from population registries, vital statistics or other records of life events, or from information on services. Questions that may be addressed by administrative datasets include the determinants of variation in utilization, costs, and outcomes of different services. Factors associated with individuals, types of organization, or geography may all be studied. Strengths and weaknesses of this approach are reviewed, and several new directions identified.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0250.054
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1650.096

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207