MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Global income related health inequalities

2007· article· en· W1506106186 on OpenAlexaff
Jalil Safaei

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityHealth equitySociologyEconomic growthEconomicsHealth careMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Income related health inequalities have been estimated for various groups of individuals at local, state, or national levels. Almost all of theses estimates are based on individual data from sample surveys. Lack of consistent individual data worldwide has prevented estimates of international income related health inequalities. This paper uses the (population weighted) aggregate data available from many countries around the world to estimate worldwide income related health inequalities. Since the intra-country inequalities are subdued by the aggregate nature of the data, the estimates would be those of the inter-country or international health inequalities. As well, the study estimates the contribution of major socioeconomic variables to the overall health inequalities. The findings of the study strongly support the existence of worldwide income related health inequalities that favor the higher income countries. Decompositions of health inequalities identify inequalities in both the level and distribution of income as the main source of health inequality along with inequalities in education and degree of urbanization as other contributing determinants. Since income related health inequalities are preventable, policies to reduce the income gaps between the poor and rich nations could greatly improve the health of hundreds of millions of people and promote global justice. Keywords: global, income, health inequality, socioeconomic determinants of health

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial medicineSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207