MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386882067 · doi:10.32920/24171420.v1

Open data and injuries in urban areas—A spatial analytical framework of Toronto using machine learning and spatial regressions

2023· preprint· en· W4386882067 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMetropolitan areaGeographyInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsScale (ratio)Public healthEnvironmental healthMedicineCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Injuries have become devastating and often under-recognized public health concerns. In Canada, injuries are the leading cause of potential years of life lost before the age of 65. The geographical patterns of injury, however, are evident both over space and time, suggesting the possibility of spatial optimization of policies at the neighborhood scale to mitigate injury risk, foster prevention, and control within metropolitan regions. In this paper, Canada’s National Ambulatory Care Reporting System is used to assess unintentional and intentional injuries for Toronto between 2004 and 2010, exploring the spatial relations of injury throughout the city, together with Wellbeing Toronto data. Corroborating with these findings, spatial autocorrelations at global and local levels are performed for the reported over 1.7 million injuries. The sub-categorization for Toronto’s neighborhood further distills the most vulnerable communities throughout the city, registering a robust spatial profile throughout. Individual neighborhoods pave the need for distinct policy profiles for injury prevention. This brings one of the main novelties of this contribution. A comparison of the three regression models is carried out. The findings suggest that the performance of spatial regression models is significantly stronger, showing evidence that spatial regressions should be used for injury research. Wellbeing Toronto data performs reasonably well in assessing unintentional injuries, morbidity, and falls. Less so to understand the dynamics of intentional injuries. The results enable a framework to allow tailor-made injury prevention initiatives at the neighborhood level as a vital source for planning and participatory decision making in the medical field in developed cities such as Toronto.</p> <p> </p>

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.317 · 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