MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389387146 · doi:10.3233/sji-230063

Classifying respondent comments from the 2021 Canadian Census of Population using machine learning methods1

2023· article· en· W4389387146 on OpenAlex
Joanne Yoon

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Journal of the IAOS · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentCensusComputer scienceCategorizationEncoderPopulationArtificial intelligenceTransformerMachine learningNatural language processingStatisticsEconometricsGeographyDemographyMathematicsSociologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the analysis of respondent comments from the Canadian Census of Population, data scientists at Statistics Canada compared and evaluated traditional machine learning, deep learning and transformer-based techniques. Cross-lingual Language Model-Robustly Optimized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (XLM-R), a cross-lingual language model, fine-tuned on census respondent comments yield the best result of 89.91% F1 score overall despite language and class imbalances. Following the evaluation, the fine-tuned model was implemented successfully to objectively categorize comments from the 2021 Census of Population, with high accuracy. As a result, feedback from respondents was directed to the appropriate subject matter analysts, for them to analyze post-collection.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.259 · 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