Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall objectives of the study can be summarized as follows: a) To collect basic research data about the City of Edmonton and to make this data available to agencies and organizations for the purpose of helping them formulate policy and direct their activities. b) To accumulate archival material for researchers and interested persons to conduct survey research using the resources of students and the Population Research Laboratory that would not have been otherwise possible. c) To provide th e opportunity for researchers to do replication of work to further validate previous findings. d) To establish an organization with the capability of obtaining data for the measurement of social change in the community. e) To permit the opportunity for researchers to refine and test methodological research techniques for the purpose of adding to the knowledge of the survey research process itself. f) To train graduate students in the methods of survey research by allowing them to participate fully in the planning and execution of a large scale survey. Questions were compiled and to them were added specific quality of life questions used in the Michigan Quality of Life Survey (1974) and the National Opinion Research Council Surveys. The basic demographic questions and their format were taken from "Survey Research", a book compiled by the Canada Council's Task Force on Survey Research (Survey Research: Report of Consultative Group on Survey Research, The Canada Council, 1976). Through this replication of questions, we are in a position to compare results obtained in Edmonton with those found in other centers. In the Edmonton Area Study, an attempt is made to provide subjective data that ultimately can be compared against objective data to establish an overall view of well-being in various "life domains" of the inhabitants of Edmonton.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.040 |
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".