Comparative Analysis of Multiple Indices of Wellbeing, Vitality and Multiple Deprivation For Communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indices of overall socio-economic conditions of communities are important for both researchers and community practitioners. Many types of quantitative indices are available for rural, remote and coastal communities in Canada that measure different aspects and dimensions of overall socio-economic conditions. Herein, we present a comparative analysis of four indices for a select number of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador to explore and illustrate these differences. Included in this analysis are two indices of wellbeing, one of vitality, and one of deprivation. Quantitative correlation measures are used to explore similarities and differences among the four indicators, complemented by a meta-analysis answering ‘who, what, why, when, where and how’ questions about each indicator. Results illustrate that due to differences in purpose, terms and definitions, time periods covered, spatial representation and methodologies, the interpretability and application of such indices must be done with caution. Our results provide a useful example for researchers and practitioners to use as a guideline when using these types of community indices. Keywords: community, wellbeing, vitality, socio-economic, Newfoundland and Labrador ______________________________________________________________________________ Une analyse comparative de plusieurs indices de bien-être, de vitalité et de privation multiple Pour les communautés de Terre-Neuve Et Labrador, Canada ResuméLes indices des conditions socio-économiques globales des communautés sont importants tant pour les chercheurs que pour les praticiens communautaires. De nombreux types d'indices quantitatifs sont disponibles pour les communautés rurales, éloignées et côtières du Canada et mesurent différents aspects et dimensions des conditions socio-économiques globales. Nous présentons ici une analyse comparative de quatre indices pour un certain nombre de communautés de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador afin d'explorer et d'illustrer ces différences. Cette analyse comprend deux indices de bien-être, un de vitalité et un de privation. Des mesures de corrélation quantitatives sont utilisées pour explorer les similitudes et les différences entre les quatre indicateurs, complétées par une méta-analyse répondant aux questions « qui, quoi, pourquoi, quand, où et comment » sur chaque indicateur. Les résultats montrent qu'en raison des différences dans l'objectif, les termes et définitions, les périodes couvertes, la représentation spatiale et les méthodologies, l'interprétabilité et l'application de ces indices doivent être faites avec prudence. Nos résultats fournissent un exemple utile que les chercheurs et les praticiens peuvent utiliser comme ligne directrice lors de l'utilisation de ces types d'indices communautaires. Mots-clés : communauté, bien-être, vitalité, socio-économique, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".