MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322630576 · doi:10.55917/2769-7045.1002

Exploring the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Number of Reported Missing Persons in Canada during 2020

2023· article· en· W4322630576 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandria Connolly, Mauranne Ste-Marie, Kevin O'Shea

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of missing persons/International journal of missing persons · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicMissing dataCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)DemographyGeographyMedicineSociologyStatisticsVirologyMathematicsInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in notable social and economic impacts in many countries, including Canada. This study examines the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of reported missing persons, adults and children, in Canada during 2020. Results indicate that there was a decrease in the number of reported missing persons cases during 2020 as compared to 2019 by 20.20%. All provinces and territories experienced a decrease, with the exception of New Brunswick. The pandemic had notable impacts specifically on the number of reported missing children, missing teenagers, and missing male individuals in general. This study provides a better understanding of how the restrictions of the pandemic affected missing persons numbers and the nature of who goes missing. These findings can also be used to inform strategies under similar future states to allow for effective response.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of missing persons/International journal of missing persons →Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→