MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963266212 · doi:10.18130/2n54-sc22

International Statistical Agencies: What can we learn from other countries about how they are using administrative data to supplement, enhance, or create new statistical products?

2023· report· en· W6963266212 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibra · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusStatistical analysisData setSet (abstract data type)Statistical survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. Census Bureau is transforming and modernizing its use of data across surveys and integrating it with administrative data to enhance the decennial census and current surveys and to create new statistical products. We examined statistical agencies in other countries to learn how they are modernizing their operations to take advantage of administrative and other data sources, such as private-sector data, to supplement, enhance, or create new data products. To do this, we summarized presentations by international statistical agencies in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. In parallel, we interviewed representatives from a similar set of statistical agencies in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.317
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.124 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibraFrench-language works237,207