Question:
I have a researcher who is looking for data on cyber security incidents and measures in relation to the healthcare industry and is interested in anything that falls within NAICS industry sector 62. We are aware of the Canadian Survey of Cyber Security and Cybercrime (CSoCC) and the data tables that correspond with it. The survey’s target population is private firms and the data tables only seem to provide data for the private sector. As the researchers are interested in healthcare which is mostly public how representative is the data provided? For example, please confirm that in terms of hospitals (NAICS 622) the data only addresses private clinics and not hospitals generally. If only private is there a general description of firms included for NAICS 621, 622, 623 and 624 that you can provide?
If the survey is not representative of healthcare institutions in Canada it would be helpful if you could suggest any alternative source of data pertaining to cyber security/ crime.
Answer:
Subject matter offered the following response:
The target population for the Canadian Survey of Cyber Security and Cybercrime (CSoCC) consists of private firms in almost all industrial sectors in Canada.
While we cannot provide a general description of the firms, here is the link to NAICS 62 for the common description of the subsectors 621, 622, 623 and 624: http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=118464&CVD=118465&CPV=62&CST=01012012&CLV=1&MLV=5.
CSoCC is not a representative of healthcare institutions (i.e. public or non-profit organizations).
The Uniform Crime Reporting Survey measures the incidence of crime in Canadian society and released data on criminal incidents reported to police https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510000101.
There are no other business surveys pertaining to cyber security and cybercrime.
Friday, March 15, 2019
Loss of Farmland to Urbanisation
Question:
A grad student would like to know if there has been any update to the research conducted by Nancy Hofmann, Giuseppe Filoso and Mike Schofield and published in The loss of dependable agricultural land in Canada ( Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin Catalogue no. 21-006-XIE Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2005)) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/21-006-x/21-006-x2005001-eng.pdf
I did some research but was not able to find any update to this research or any equivalent measurement of farmland loss to urban areas.
Have I missed something?
Answer:
Subject matter returned the following comments:
“I don’t believe there has been a follow-up article or other research by the agency to follow that one up.”
Follow-up Answer:
I’ve been given the following regarding this request:
The latest release on this topic was:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-201-x/16-201-x2016000-eng.htm
A grad student would like to know if there has been any update to the research conducted by Nancy Hofmann, Giuseppe Filoso and Mike Schofield and published in The loss of dependable agricultural land in Canada ( Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin Catalogue no. 21-006-XIE Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2005)) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/21-006-x/21-006-x2005001-eng.pdf
I did some research but was not able to find any update to this research or any equivalent measurement of farmland loss to urban areas.
Have I missed something?
Answer:
Subject matter returned the following comments:
“I don’t believe there has been a follow-up article or other research by the agency to follow that one up.”
Follow-up Answer:
I’ve been given the following regarding this request:
The latest release on this topic was:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-201-x/16-201-x2016000-eng.htm
Question about Labour Force Survey 2016
Question:
I have a faculty member contacting me about the Labour Force Survey for 2016. The occupational variables for all the months in 2016 are blank. I double checked the data in Nesstar and none of the occupation variables include the year 2016 – they are all prior to 2015. The occupation variables return in the 2017 data. I was reading the documentation, and the occupation codes changed between 2015 and 2016, but I would still expect to find the new codes in 2016. Is this an error?
Answer:
Subject matter returned the following comments:
No this isn’t an error. The occupational codes were removed from the LFS PUMF in 2016 during product revision. The NOC groupings where changed in 2017 to better protect respondent confidentiality and mitigate the risk of disclosure.
During the reassessment phase in 2016, the classification was completely removed with no plans to reintroduce it. Which does in fact create a break in the series.
I have a faculty member contacting me about the Labour Force Survey for 2016. The occupational variables for all the months in 2016 are blank. I double checked the data in Nesstar and none of the occupation variables include the year 2016 – they are all prior to 2015. The occupation variables return in the 2017 data. I was reading the documentation, and the occupation codes changed between 2015 and 2016, but I would still expect to find the new codes in 2016. Is this an error?
Answer:
Subject matter returned the following comments:
No this isn’t an error. The occupational codes were removed from the LFS PUMF in 2016 during product revision. The NOC groupings where changed in 2017 to better protect respondent confidentiality and mitigate the risk of disclosure.
During the reassessment phase in 2016, the classification was completely removed with no plans to reintroduce it. Which does in fact create a break in the series.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
2017 CCHS Data for 18-29 Age Group
Question:
I have researcher from a smoking cessation project looking for data from the 2017 CCHS covering a different age range than the standard products report. We know the PUMF is probably a year away. Would this require a custom tabulation?
1. young adult (18-29) current smoking prevalence (past 30-days) in Ontario
2. and how this rate compares with the national average (or even other provinces) for the same age group, young adult (18-29)
3. young adult (18-29) daily smoking prevalence in Ontario
4. young adult (18-29) occasional smoking prevalence in Ontario
Answer:
We’ve received the following response from subject matter:
“We can run the numbers for the researcher, however, could you clarify with them if for the first estimate they would like the prevalence of current daily or occasional smokers or the prevalence of those who smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days?”
Follow-up Question:
I checked with the researcher, and here’s their reply:
For the first inquiry, primarily, I would like to know whether or not they have smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days.
However, I’d also be very interested to see the current smoking rate (daily + occasional), as well to compare the two data.
Looking at CCHS 2016 on ODESI, this would be question SMK_Q010 for the past 30 days, but also very interested in SMK_Q005, provided that these questions did not change for CCHS 2017.
Follow-up Answer:
Please see the following response from subject matter:
Here are the requested estimates:
I have researcher from a smoking cessation project looking for data from the 2017 CCHS covering a different age range than the standard products report. We know the PUMF is probably a year away. Would this require a custom tabulation?
1. young adult (18-29) current smoking prevalence (past 30-days) in Ontario
2. and how this rate compares with the national average (or even other provinces) for the same age group, young adult (18-29)
3. young adult (18-29) daily smoking prevalence in Ontario
4. young adult (18-29) occasional smoking prevalence in Ontario
Answer:
We’ve received the following response from subject matter:
“We can run the numbers for the researcher, however, could you clarify with them if for the first estimate they would like the prevalence of current daily or occasional smokers or the prevalence of those who smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days?”
Follow-up Question:
I checked with the researcher, and here’s their reply:
For the first inquiry, primarily, I would like to know whether or not they have smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days.
However, I’d also be very interested to see the current smoking rate (daily + occasional), as well to compare the two data.
Looking at CCHS 2016 on ODESI, this would be question SMK_Q010 for the past 30 days, but also very interested in SMK_Q005, provided that these questions did not change for CCHS 2017.
Follow-up Answer:
Please see the following response from subject matter:
Here are the requested estimates:
Smoked cigarettes within the past 30 days, population aged 18 to 29, 2017
| |||
Estimate (%)
|
95% CI
| ||
Ontario†
|
16.4
|
(13.9, 18.9)
| |
Canada (Excluding territories)
|
19.1*
|
(17.7, 20.5)
| |
By province
| |||
Newfoundland and Labrador
|
28.2*
|
(20.7, 35.6)
| |
Prince Edward Island
|
18.3ᴱ
|
(10.2, 26.3)
| |
Nova Scotia
|
22.5ᴱ
|
(15.6, 29.3)
| |
New Brunswick
|
18.3ᴱ
|
(10.9, 25.7)
| |
Quebec
|
22.8*
|
(20.1, 25.6)
| |
Manitoba
|
22.0ᴱ
|
(15.5, 28.5)
| |
Saskatchewan
|
26.3*
|
(19.6, 33.1)
| |
Alberta
|
21.8*
|
(18.3, 25.3)
| |
British Columbia
|
15.3
|
(12.1, 18.5)
| |
† reference category
| |||
* significantly different from Ontario population (p-value < 0.05)
| |||
ᴱ use with caution (these data have a coefficient of variation between 15.1% and 35.0%)
| |||
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2017
| |||
Current daily or occasional smokers, population aged 18 to 29, 2017
| ||||||
Daily or occasional smokers
|
Daily smokers
|
Occasional smokers
| ||||
Estimate (%)
|
95% CI
|
Estimate (%)
|
95% CI
|
Estimate (%)
|
95% CI
| |
Canada (Excluding territories)
|
19.1
|
(17.7, 20.5)
|
10.7
|
(9.6, 11.8)
|
8.4
|
(7.4, 9.3)
|
Ontario
|
16.2
|
(13.8, 18.7)
|
10.2
|
(8.0, 12.4)
|
6.0
|
(4.6, 7.5)
|
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2017
| ||||||
Census Data (custom tabs in ODESI)
Question:
I have a researcher working with the tables giving the number of jobs located in each DA for 2006 and 2016(Place of Work DA from http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/documentation/CENSUS/2016/cen16labour.html and http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/documentation/CENSUS/2006/TBT/B2020/DOCS/cenb06labour.html), and they have noted a number of DAs missing. The notes section indicates that communities with fewer than 40 people are not included, but given that this data is for place of work are DAs not included if fewer than 40 people report the DA as their place of work (that is my reading based on the data in the table, but I would like to confirm)? If so, is there a possibility of a custom tab to get this data?
DAs missing from tables:
2016:
59530104
59530023
59530206
59530208
59530051
59530055
59530047
59530086
2006 and 2016:
59530049
59530050
Answer:
Subject matter confirmed the following:
Thank you for your query. You are correct. Place of work geography suppression is done on the employed labour force population who worked at home or had a usual place of work, not on the residential population. The minimum population threshold is 40 for any data.
A custom table would not have data for geographies suppressed under this rule.
I have a researcher working with the tables giving the number of jobs located in each DA for 2006 and 2016(Place of Work DA from http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/documentation/CENSUS/2016/cen16labour.html and http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/documentation/CENSUS/2006/TBT/B2020/DOCS/cenb06labour.html), and they have noted a number of DAs missing. The notes section indicates that communities with fewer than 40 people are not included, but given that this data is for place of work are DAs not included if fewer than 40 people report the DA as their place of work (that is my reading based on the data in the table, but I would like to confirm)? If so, is there a possibility of a custom tab to get this data?
DAs missing from tables:
2016:
59530104
59530023
59530206
59530208
59530051
59530055
59530047
59530086
2006 and 2016:
59530049
59530050
Answer:
Subject matter confirmed the following:
Thank you for your query. You are correct. Place of work geography suppression is done on the employed labour force population who worked at home or had a usual place of work, not on the residential population. The minimum population threshold is 40 for any data.
A custom table would not have data for geographies suppressed under this rule.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Public Access to PUMFS
Question:
It was my understanding that with the Statistics Canada Open License, members of the public could access to PUMFs as long as they signed an agreement…?
Answer:
As of October 2018, PUMFs fall under the Statistics Canada Open Licence. More information on what users can now do with the data can be found here: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence and FAQs here: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence-faq. An agreement does not need to be signed in order for members of the public to access the PUMFs.
Follow-up Questions:
When I look at PUMFs on StatCan.gc.ca, I see that they’re available to the public via the data portal if they fill out the order form. Does this mean that a member of the public requesting a PUMF via statcan.gc.ca would still be asked to pay, while a member of the public requesting the PUMF from a DLI member institution would be able to access it free of charge?
Follow-up Answer:
As always, you can get PUMFs for free from subject matter. There is not yet a central location for free download of PUMFs however, but it’s in the works!
Follow-up Question:
Another question about the PUMF Open License, this one from a researcher. They ask:
Does that mean that PUMFs acquired via DLI could be shared outside of the institution without restriction, e.g. packaged as part of a textbook for broad dissemination?
Follow-up Answer:
PUMFs acquired via the DLI can be shared outside of the institution, provided that StatCan is cited in the documentation.
It was my understanding that with the Statistics Canada Open License, members of the public could access to PUMFs as long as they signed an agreement…?
Answer:
As of October 2018, PUMFs fall under the Statistics Canada Open Licence. More information on what users can now do with the data can be found here: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence and FAQs here: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence-faq. An agreement does not need to be signed in order for members of the public to access the PUMFs.
Follow-up Questions:
When I look at PUMFs on StatCan.gc.ca, I see that they’re available to the public via the data portal if they fill out the order form. Does this mean that a member of the public requesting a PUMF via statcan.gc.ca would still be asked to pay, while a member of the public requesting the PUMF from a DLI member institution would be able to access it free of charge?
Follow-up Answer:
As always, you can get PUMFs for free from subject matter. There is not yet a central location for free download of PUMFs however, but it’s in the works!
Follow-up Question:
Another question about the PUMF Open License, this one from a researcher. They ask:
Does that mean that PUMFs acquired via DLI could be shared outside of the institution without restriction, e.g. packaged as part of a textbook for broad dissemination?
Follow-up Answer:
PUMFs acquired via the DLI can be shared outside of the institution, provided that StatCan is cited in the documentation.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Marital Status from 1976 to 2016
Question:
A researcher is looking for the following info.
And apart from looking at each year individually or putting together a couple of years, I have not been able to find it.
Can anyone help me with this request?
“Specifically, I am looking to find out the percentage of the population (aged 15 and over) in each census from 1976 to 2016 that were:
(1) Single
(2) Married
(3) Widowed
(4) Divorced
(5) Separated
(6) Common-law
The most important years for my purposes are 1981 and 2011, but I'd like to have 50 years worth of data from 1976-2016 if possible.”
Answer:
Vital Statistics stopped being gathered to that level of granularity in 2008 (they're submitted to StatsCan from various Provincial Departments). I know for sure that divorce rates are not available, though births and deaths still are.
A researcher is looking for the following info.
And apart from looking at each year individually or putting together a couple of years, I have not been able to find it.
Can anyone help me with this request?
“Specifically, I am looking to find out the percentage of the population (aged 15 and over) in each census from 1976 to 2016 that were:
(1) Single
(2) Married
(3) Widowed
(4) Divorced
(5) Separated
(6) Common-law
The most important years for my purposes are 1981 and 2011, but I'd like to have 50 years worth of data from 1976-2016 if possible.”
Answer:
Vital Statistics stopped being gathered to that level of granularity in 2008 (they're submitted to StatsCan from various Provincial Departments). I know for sure that divorce rates are not available, though births and deaths still are.
Follow-Up Comment:
I checked, and you’re completely Senioritis-free! Both of these pages (a and b below) note under Data release, “2008 is the last year for which these data were collected”.
a)Vital Statistics, Divorce Database, Survey 3235, (data from the Department of Justice Canada)
i. Note, the StatCan Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics released this: Divorce cases in civil court, 2010/2011
ii. Also noted in Parenting and child support after separation or divorce
“there are multiple data sources that can provide information on separated or divorced Canadians: the Census of Population, the General Social Survey (GSS) on Families and the Civil Courts Survey”
b)Vital Statistics, Marriage Database, Survey 3232 (data from provincial and territorial registries)
i. GSS-related publications touch on narrower topics if at all like: Emerging trends in living arrangements and conjugal unions for current and future seniors 1981-2011
I did a basic presentation on “vital” stats a few years ago and noted that the Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada perhaps should touch on these topics but is slow do so. The “latest” report include 2011 Census data only on marital status. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/91-209-X . But it’s interesting to know about this report for topics like fertility through to 2016 (data available thanks to the births database).
Just a side note that responsibility for tracking therapeutic abortions was with StatCan from 1969 to 1994 and was transferred to CIHI in 1995. I don’t know if this older data can be found via CIHI, but a couple of StatCan sources are: Teenage Abortions and Births, for women aged 13 through 19, Canada, provinces and territories - 1974 to 1995 [B2020 on Odesi], and Health Reports, Winter 1997, Vol. 9 no. 3 Marital status and abortion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)