MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964216141 · doi:10.2202/1558-9544.1180

The Effects of Adolescent Health on Educational Outcomes: Causal Evidence Using Genetic Lotteries between Siblings

2009· article· en· W1964216141 on OpenAlexaff
Jason M. Fletcher, Steven Lehrer

Bibliographic record

VenueForum for Health Economics & Policy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusInstrumental variableOverweightHuman capitalInheritance (genetic algorithm)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEmpirical evidenceAdolescent healthMental healthDemographyObesityMedicineEnvironmental healthBiologyEconomicsEconometricsPsychiatryGeneticsPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been growing interest in using specific genetic markers as instrumental variables in attempts to assess causal relationships between health status and socioeconomic outcomes, including human capital accumulation. In this paper, we use a combination of family fixed effects and genetic marker instruments to estimate the causal effects of poor adolescent mental and physical health status on years of completed schooling. By exploiting the genetic variation in inheritance within families, this empirical strategy presents a unique opportunity to isolate the variation in genetic factors from other dynastic and family characteristics. We present evidence that inattentive symptoms in early childhood have large lasting effects in reducing completed schooling. We also find little consistent evidence that adolescent overweight status influences years of schooling completed.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum for Health Economics & PolicySame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207