MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095790739

Overview of the Postcensal Estimates of Population by Age and Sex

2013· article· en· W7095790739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationCensusEstimationNatural population growthDemographic analysisPopulation projectionQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The population estimates by age and sex for Washington State counties are developed using the component method, which derives the estimated population by adding natural population change (births minus deaths) and net migration to the base year population. Two steps are taken prior to the estimation process. First, the group quarters population is subtracted from the base population (it is added back in at the end of the estimate process). Second, the base year population is aged one year forward. The following is the detailed description of the method: 1. For 2011 estimates, the 2010 Census population by single year of age and sex for each county is used as the base, and the estimates themselves will be used as base thereafter. 2. Group quarter population typically retains their age sex characteristics across a decade. So military, college/university, and prison populations are subtracted off the county population prior to the estimate process. 3. The population is aged one year forward. a. For the 2011 estimates, the population is aged in single year increments b. For estimates 2012 and later, the population data is categorized in five year intervals. One fifth of each five year interval is aged forward.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207