MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931697645 · doi:10.5683/sp3/wv6lbq

Survey of Household Spending, 2009 [Canada] [Excel]

2015· dataset· en· W6931697645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer and biochemical research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumer Expenditure SurveySurvey data collectionConsumer expenditureConsumer spendingSurvey researchQuality (philosophy)Survey methodologyCurrent Population Survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Survey of Household Spending provides detailed information on household expenditures, dwelling characteristics, and ownership of household equipment. Conducted since 1997, the Survey of Household Spending integrates most of the content found in the Family Expenditure Survey (FAMEX) (1969-1996) and the Household Facilities and Equipment Survey (apart of the Survey of Consumer Finances) (1973-1998). Many data from these two surveys are comparable to the Survey of Household Spending d ata. However, some differences related to methodology, to data quality and to definitions must be considered before comparing these data. Detailed information was collected about expenditures for consumer goods and services, changes in assets, mortgages and other loans, and annual income. Information was also collected about dwelling characteristics (e.g., type and age of heating equipment) and household equipment (e.g., appliances, communications equipment, and vehicles).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.027

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisSame topicCancer and biochemical researchFrench-language works237,207