MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096506606

Methodological Issues in Measuring Population Health Accounting for a Significant Methodological Change in Analyzing Canadian Community Health Survey Data

2015· article· en· W7096506606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilitySample (material)Data collectionPopulation healthCommunity healthPopulationSampling frameSurvey methodologySurvey sampling
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistics Canada’s Canadian Community Health Survey uses two sample frames and two data collection methods. In cycle 2.1, a change was made in sample allocation between the two frames. A study of the collection method effect by Statistics Canada revealed comparability problems between cycles 1.1 and 2.1. In contrast, the Institut de la statistique du Québec took a comprehensive look at the changes, and classified 178 variables as “comparable ” or “non-comparable”. It made recommendations to Quebec users concerning chronological and interregional comparisons.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.930
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207