MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307407759 · doi:10.1162/99608f92.13e1d60e

The Use of Data Science in a National Statistical Office

2022· article· en· W4307407759 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sevgui Erman, Eric Rancourt, Yanick Beaucage, Andre Loranger

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Data Science Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective statistical information is vital to an open and democratic society. It provides a solid foundation so that informed decisions can be made by our elected representatives, businesses, unions, and non-profit organizations, as well as individual citizens. There is a great shift towards a more virtual and digital economy and society. The traditional official statistical systems are centered on surveys, and must be adapted to this new digital reality. National statistical offices have been increasingly embracing non-survey data sources along with data science methods to better serve society.This paper provides a blueprint for the application of data science in a government organization. It describes how data science enables innovation and the delivery of new high-value, high-quality, relevant, and trusted products that reflect the ever-evolving needs of our society and economy. We discuss practical operational considerations and impactful data science applications that supported the work of Statistics Canada’s analysts and front-line health agencies during the pandemic. We also discuss the innovative use of scanner data in lieu of survey data for large business respondents in the retail industry. We will describe computer vision methodologies, including machine learning models used to detect the start of buildings construction from satellite imagery, greenhouse area and greenhouse production, as well as crop types detection. Data science and machine learning methods have tremendous potential, and their ethical use is of primary importance. We conclude the paper with a forward-facing view of responsible data science use in statistical production.

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)0.158
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.248
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1580.248
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0120.016
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.143 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Data Science ReviewSame topicData Analysis with RFrench-language works237,207