Health Regions: Boundaries and correspondence with census geography, 2005 [Canada]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health Regions 2005 describes in detail the health region limits as of June 2005 and their correspondence with the 1996 and 2001 Census geography. Health regions are defined by the provinces and represent administrative areas or regions of interest to health authorities. This product contains correspondence files (linking health regions to 2001 Census geographic codes) and digital boundary files. User documentation provides an overview of health regions, sources, methods, limitations and product description (file format and layout).In addition to the geographic files, this product also includes 2001 Census data (basic profile) for health regions. A result of the co-operation of provincial health ministries, Alberta Treasury and BC Stats, Health Regions 2005 is part of the Health Information Roadmap initiative, a joint effort among the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Health Canada and Statistics Canada. Health Regions 2005 was produced by the Health Statistics Division in collaboration with the Geography and Dissemination divisionsHealth regions are definedby provincial governments as the areas of responsibility for regional healthboards (i.e., legislated) or as regions of interest to health care authorities. This product replaces Health Regions 2000. For current Health Regions data, refer to Statistics Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.039 |
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".