Family Matters: Enhancing Insight in Linked Administrative Data Through Familial Linkage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveFamilial relationships can provide researchers with important insight into genetic, environmental, and social influences across many domains of research. While most administrative datasets do not collect information about relationships, familial linkage is an approach which seeks to identify such relationships among individuals within a linked data environment. We sought to develop a familial linkage resource which permits researchers access to relationship information otherwise not available in unlinked disparate administrative collections. ApproachLeveraging birth and marriage registration data, we sought to identify relationships between Victorians. Familial links were formed by summarising relationships that were either explicit in the data (e.g. Parent and Child), or implied (e.g. A parent of a parent is a grandparent). Resulting relationship data was stored in a data asset which interfaces with our linkage infrastructure for easy access and use by linked data end-users. ResultsThrough familial linkage, we have identified over 8.8 million unique relationships for Victorians, spanning 24 relationship subtypes which include both biological and non-biological connections. This data can be linked to all administrative datasets within our linkage environment, however representation varies across sources. Overall, the highest coverage of known relationships is found in datasets which specialise in child services, while older Victorians remain a gap. Conclusion and ImplicationsFamilial linkage offers new dimensions of insight to researchers than what is accessible in source data alone. This information enables our data end-users to gain critical insights into the complex interplay between biological and social influences on Victorians’ health and well-being.
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 | 0.028 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".