MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096367225

Proceedings of the Survey Methods Section IMPUTATION OF PROXY RESPONDENTS IN THE CANADIAN COMMUNITY HEALTH SURVEY

2014· article· en· W7096367225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImputation (statistics)Missing dataProxy (statistics)Community healthSurvey data collectionSurvey samplingSample (material)Survey methodology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between September 2000 and November 2001, the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) collected information on the health of Canadians. The sample contained over 130,000 respondents distributed among 136 health regions in Canada in order to produce reliable estimates at the health region level. Among the respondents, a small percentage were proxy respondents, that is, another person in the household answered on behalf of the selected person. Given the private or personal nature of certain topics in the survey, several questions were not asked by proxy. Therefore, a non-negligible amount of information was missing for these respondents. Considering the magnitude of the situation in some health regions, an imputation of the missing data using a nearest neighbour approach was developed. This article describes the adopted imputation strategy as well as results of simulations done to assess its efficiency.

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 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)0.448
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4480.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.183 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207