MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508820574 · doi:10.1002/hec.2931

THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH STATUS AND HEALTH SHOCKS ON HOURS WORKED

2013· article· en· W1508820574 on OpenAlexaff
Lixin Cai, Kostas Mavromaras, Umut Oguzoglu

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAustralian Research CouncilFlinders University
KeywordsEndogeneityTobit modelEstimationDemographic economicsWorking ageWorking hoursEconomicsWorking timeEconometricsMedicineEnvironmental healthLabour economicsWork (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the impact of health on working hours. This is in recognition of the fact that leaving the labour market because of persistently low levels of health status, or because of new health shocks, is only one of the possible responses open to employees. We use the first six waves of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to estimate the joint effect of health status and health shocks on working hours. To account for zero working hours, we use a dynamic random effects Tobit model of working hours. We follow Heckman (1981) and approximate the unknown initial conditions with a static equation that utilises information from the first wave of the data. Predicted individual health status is used to ameliorate the possible effects of measurement error and endogeneity. We conclude that overall, lower health status results in fewer working hours and that when they occur, health shocks lead to further reductions in working hours. Estimation results show that the model performs well in separating the time-persistent effect of health status and the potentially more transient health shocks on working hours.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations63
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207