MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307622887 · doi:10.3233/sji-220082

Predicting the quality and evaluating the use of administrative data for the 2021 Canadian Census of Population

2022· article· en· W4307622887 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

VenueStatistical Journal of the IAOS · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusImputation (statistics)Data qualityPopulationPandemicGeographyMissing dataCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer scienceStatisticsEnvironmental healthMedicineOperations managementEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the statistical contingency plan for the 2021 Canadian Census of Population, developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, wherein administrative data was to impute non-responding households in areas with a low response rate and where the administrative data were of sufficient quality. We describe the modeling approach for predicting the quality of data available for administrative households, including important extensions to existing approaches. As well, we provide a framework for evaluating direct imputation using administrative data, relative to traditional donor imputation, in the absence of a simulation study. We conclude by discussing the evaluation using preliminary data and subsequent implementation for the 2021 Canadian Census of Population.

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.

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.598
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.074 · 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