MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408147236 · doi:10.1177/18747655241307539

Do principles and ethics of official statistics need to be adjusted to national circumstances? A discussion

2025· article· en· W4408147236 on OpenAlex
Dennis Trewin

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Journal of the IAOS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficial statisticsPolitical scienceStatisticsActuarial scienceEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the question posed at a session at the 2023 World Statistics Congress in Ottawa. It looks at both the ISI's Declaration of Professional Statistical Ethics and the United Nations’ Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. It concludes that two highest levels of the ethical hierarchy (values and principles) should not be adjusted for national circumstances. However, their application will be different as nations can be working in very different environments. Therefore, the two lowest levels of the ethical hierarchy (codes of conduct and guidelines) can be adjusted for national circumstances. The paper also explores some of the newer challenges for compliance with principles. It finishes with a suggestion on how to encourage greater compliance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics.

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.295 · 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