MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969496388 · doi:10.5683/sp3/olr0wi

Survey of Household Spending, 2011 [Canada] [Excel]

2013· dataset· en· W6969496388 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2013
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilityCurrent Population SurveySurvey data collectionHousehold incomeSurvey samplingGoods and servicesSample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Survey of Household Spending provides detailed information on household expenditures, dwelling characteristics, and ownership of household equipment. The Survey of Household Spending is carried out annually across Canada in the ten provinces. Data for the territories are available for 1998, 1999 and every second year thereafter. The 2011 SHS was conducted from January 2011 to December 2011 using a sample of 17,873 households in the 10 provinces (the territories were not included in the 2011 survey). Detailed spending information was collected, as well as limited information on dwelling characteristics and household equipment. The method of adjusting for incomplete diaries has been refined with the 2011 SHS. As well, the age of household members is now defined to be at the time of the interview rather than as of December 31st of the survey year. To ensure comparability of the data, the 2010 data have also been revised by incorporating these changes. The revised 2010 estimate of average household spending on all types of goods and services has increased by 1.3% when compared with the previously published 2010 estimate (April 2012). For current Survey of Household Spending data refer to Statistics Canada Access data here

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)0.005
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.012

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisFrench-language works237,207