MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528040889

Social gradients in child health and development in relation to income inequality. Who benefits from greater income equality

2013· dissertation· en· W1528040889 on OpenAlex
Philippa K Bird

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWhite Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedInequalitySocioeconomic statusMillennium Cohort Study (United States)Demographic economicsEconomic inequalitySocial inequalityCohortNational Child Development StudySocial determinants of healthCohort studyEconomic growthPsychologyEconomicsDemographySociologyPopulationMedicineHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable evidence that health and development are better, on average, in countries with greater income equality. However, much of the research has focussed on average health and wellbeing; it is less clear how this benefit is distributed across society – do people from advantaged and disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds benefit equally? Further, there has been little research on the relationship between income inequality and child health. 
\nThis thesis aimed to explore how the social gradient in child health and development varies in relation to income inequality in high income countries. 
\n
\nI used two approaches to answer the question: Does everyone do better in more equal countries? I conducted a critical review of previous literature comparing social gradients in health and wellbeing. I also conducted original analysis using a comparative cohort study. I compared social gradients in health and development among children aged 4-6, using 7 cohort studies from 6 countries (US, UK, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden). I reviewed approaches to comparing data between studies and across countries, and harmonised the samples and variables to facilitate comparisons. 
\n
\nThe studies in the critical review varied considerably, but there was substantial evidence that health and wellbeing are better for everyone in more equal countries (with the most disadvantaged benefitting the most). In the comparative cohort analysis, there was some evidence that social gradients are steeper in more equal countries (inequalities are greater), and some evidence that everyone does better. However, there were many inconsistencies and comparisons were challenging due to measurement differences between the cohorts. 
\n 
\nThe observation that social gradients are shallower in some countries than others shows that such inequalities can be prevented. There is growing evidence that people from all social backgrounds would benefit if countries had greater income equality. 
\n

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.272 · 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