Expanding data resources beyond “health care”: exploring options and implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPopulation data science has a long history with health care data. Some data centres are expanding to include “health-related” data, including information on other publicly funded services (e.g. education, income and housing supports), and systems (e.g. criminal justice, children in care). We describe what enabled this expansion through three examples from Health Data Research Network Canada. MethodsHDRN Canada members include data centres that provide access to linkable data sets for approved research projects. We use case studies to identify similarities, differences, and lessons learned from the process of expansion in the provinces of Manitoba, New Brunswick and British Columbia. ResultsThe Manitoba Centre for Health Policy has 30+ years of experience with linked data, with a consistent focus on population health. Data sets expanded incrementally, through partnerships across government agencies. Population Data BC has a nearly 30-year history, with recent expansion to health-related data through partnership with a program of one government ministry that operates under distinct legislative authority. The New Brunswick Institute for Research, Data and Training is newer, and helped advocate for legislation changes that enabled an expanded set of linked data to be made available for research. All embed Five Safes principles, and commitments to inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility and Indigenous data sovereignty in data governance. ConclusionA greater variety of data enables research to answer complex research questions. This kind of expansion can be accomplished through different mechanisms, but in all cases requires attention to ethical and legal principles of population data science.
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 | 0.190 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.054 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".