MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386089959 · doi:10.1101/2023.08.18.23294274

Pseudo-neighbourhoods: Approximating the Social Characteristics of Saskatoon’s Locally-Defined Neighbourhoods using Statistics Canada’s Census Profiles

2023· preprint· en· W4386089959 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anousheh Marouzi, Charles Plante, Cory Neudorf

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusGeographyJoinsSocial geographyGeocodingCartographySpatial analysisRegional scienceSpatial ecologyHuman geographyStatisticsData scienceEconomic geographyComputer scienceSociologyDemographyMathematicsRemote sensingPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a growing desire to use social data to support local evidence-based health planning and decision-making. However, the geographic boundaries which social data are disseminated for do not usually align exactly with boundaries used by local health organizations. In this paper, we propose a method we call “pseudo-geography” to estimate counts for locally-defined geographic boundaries using data on smaller spatial units. We compared six different pseudo-geography methods, using data in Saskatoon, and identified the most accurate one, which incorporates the area-weighted spatial join technique. We further found that the pseudo-geography method can be refined by eliminating the areas with few or no residents before carrying out any spatial joins. We expect this method to be more accurate in larger cities and when the ratio of the locally-defined area to the smaller spatial units gets larger.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 venuemedRxivSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207