MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W606264317

Sampling Design and Data Collection for NEWPATH Survey

2013· article· en· W606264317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Thompson, Lawrence D. Frank, Leia Minaker, Josh van Loon, Kathleen McSpurren, P.D. Fisher, Kim D. Raine

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 92nd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSampling designData collectionWalkabilitySampling (signal processing)Survey data collectionOversamplingStatisticsSurvey samplingSurvey methodologyStratified samplingSurvey researchSample (material)GeographySample size determinationPopulationComputer scienceEnvironmental healthBuilt environmentMathematicsPsychologyApplied psychologyEngineeringMedicineTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of sampling and data collection for the NEWPATH survey, conducted in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, are presented as a case study in design of a complex survey of health behaviors, including travel patterns, objectively- and subjectively-measured physical activity behaviors, diet-related behaviors, and health outcomes. Features of this design include stratification of the sample with respect to neighborhood walkability, household income and household size with allocation to achieve high statistical power, and carrying out sampling in phases to achieve cost efficiencies. The final data set is approximately representative of the population in terms of demographic measures, and survey weights compensate for biases introduced by oversampling of high- and low-walkability areas as well as differential non-response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.007

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 92nd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207