Including non-binary gender in the calibration strategy for the Canadian long-form sample survey weights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to global events impacting social and economic landscapes, the spotlight on inequalities endured by marginalized and vulnerable groups has intensified, necessitating action from policymakers to create a more equitable future for all. It is essential that National Statistics Offices (NSOs) provide detailed statistical data which highlights the experiences of these marginalized groups to ensure that fairness and inclusion are key components of evidence-based policy. Aligning with these principles, in 2021 Canada became the first country to collect and disseminate data on gender diversity in a national census giving Canadians the option to select male, female, or non-binary. Due to their small size, non-binary population totals were not used in the 2021 Census long-form sample calibration due to the risk of increasing the variance of estimates. This paper presents an alternative long-form calibration strategy which allows for small populations, such as non-binary individuals, to be incorporated while mitigating methodological concerns. The strategy put forward can incorporate multiple small populations simultaneously while also being adaptable to the calibration systems of other NSOs. The results of a Monte Carlo simulation are presented showing improved data quality for the non-binary population under the alternative calibration strategy.
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 | 0.081 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".