Measuring Differences in the Effect of Social Resource Factors on the Health of Elderly Canadian Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-documented that differences in the exposure to social resources play a significant role in influencing gender inequalities in health in old age. It is less clear in the literature if social factors have a differential impact on the health of older men and women. This paper examines gender differences in the patterns of social predictors of health among elderly persons. Using data from the 1998-1999 Canadian National Population Health Survey, the findings show that differences in socio-economic, lifestyle, and psychosocial resources contribute to variation in the health status of elderly persons in terms of self-rated health and functional and chronic health. Many of these predictors of health, however, differ in their effect on health between elderly males and females. The impact of age and exercise on health is larger for older women compared to older men, yet income, smoking, level of social support, and distress have a greater effect on health for older men than they do for older women. These gender differences have important policy implications for health-care promotion and delivery services. Health policy needs to reflect the underlying social determinants of health, and their differential influence on the health of elderly men and women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".