MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391509064 · doi:10.1016/j.eeh.2024.101579

Linked samples and measurement error in historical US census data

2024· article· en· W4391509064 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueExplorations in Economic History · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsCensusFalse positive paradoxStatisticsObservational errorData qualityEconometricsDemographyGeographyMathematicsEconomicsSociologyPopulationOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of historical US census data is critical to the performance of linking algorithms. We use genealogical profiles to correct measurement error in census names and ages. Our findings suggest that one in every two records has an error in name or age, and human capital is correlated with lower error rates. While errors in age decline across subsequent census rounds from 1850 to 1930, errors in names do not exhibit such trends. Fixing all transcription errors, hence leaving only those errors made at the time of enumeration, would reduce error rates in names by 41 percent. Correcting all names and ages using genealogical profiles leads to 20%–36% more links and fewer false positives. Reassuringly, we find that reducing such errors has a negligible effect on estimates of intergenerational mobility.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.365
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.003 · 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