MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W122466728 · doi:10.1515/bejeap-2013-0184

Income Inequality and Health: Panel Data Evidence from Canada

2015· article· en· W122466728 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ehsan Latif

Bibliographic record

VenueThe B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDecileGini coefficientEconomic inequalityInequalityTheil indexEconomicsIncome distributionIncome inequality metricsEconometricsIndex (typography)Robustness (evolution)Demographic economicsPanel dataHealth equityStatisticsMathematicsHealth careEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using longitudinal data from the Canadian National Population Survey (1994–2006), this study examines the impact of income inequality on current health outcomes. The result suggests that once unobserved individual specific heterogeneity is controlled for, income inequality as measured by Gini Coefficient has no significant impact on current health status. This result holds true for contemporaneous income inequality as well as for lagged income inequalities. There are mixed results from the robustness check using various measures of income inequality. Decile Ratio (90P/10P) and Coefficient of Variation have no impacts on current health status. On the other hand, contemporaneous income inequality measured by Log Mean Deviation and Theil Index have significant negative effects on current health. All of the models suggest that absolute income has a significant positive effect on health status

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe B E Journal of Economic Analysis & PolicySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207