MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W603141552

Application of quality control in ICR data capture 2001 Canadian census of agriculture

2005· article· en· W603141552 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusQuality assuranceStatistical process controlQuality (philosophy)Control (management)Data qualityComputer scienceProcess (computing)Automatic identification and data captureDatabaseOperations researchData scienceEngineeringOperations managementArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) has been widely used as a new technology in data capture processing. It was used for the first time at Statistics Canada to process the 2001 Canadian Census of Agriculture. This involved many new challenges, both operational and methodological. This paper presents an overview of the methodological tools used to put in place an efficient ICR system. Since the potential for high levels of error existed at various stages of the operation, Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) methods and procedures were built into this operation to ensure a high degree of accuracy in the captured data. This paper describes these QA / QC methods along with their results and shows how quality improvements were achieved in the ICR Data Capture operation. This paper also identifies the positive impacts of these procedures on this operation. 1. Walter Mudryk and Hansheng Xie, Business Survey Methods Division, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0T6.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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