Multidimensional well-being of US households at a fine spatial scale using fused household surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social science often relies on surveys of households and individuals. Dozens of such surveys are regularly administered by the U.S. government. However, they field independent, unconnected samples with specialized questions, limiting research questions to those that can be answered by a single survey. The presented data comprise the fusion onto the American Community Survey (ACS) microdata of select donor variables from the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) of 2015, the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) of 2017, the American Housing Survey (AHS) of 2019, and the Consumer Expenditure Survey - Interview (CEI) for the years 2015-2019. This results in an integrated microdataset of household attributes and well-being dimensions that can be analyzed to address research questions in ways that are not currently possible. The underlying statistical techniques, designed under the fusionACS project, are included in an open-source R package, fusionModel, that provides generic tools for the creation, analysis, and validation of fused microdata.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".