MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000556986 · doi:10.1177/1363459304038793

Self-Reported Health in Poland and the United States: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic, Family and Socioeconomic Influences

2004· article· en· W2000556986 on OpenAlexaff
Magdalena Szaflarski, Lisa A. Cubbins

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusHealth careSocial determinants of healthDemographyGeographyDemographic economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsSociologyPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares the social determinants of individual health between the United States, a capitalist society, and Poland, a 'post-communist' society. The effects of demographic factors, family characteristics and socioeconomic status on self-reported health are estimated with OLS regression using data from the 1994 American and Polish General Social Surveys. The results show lower self-reported health and more rapid declines in health for people over 60 in Poland than in the United States. Also, in Poland, women report worse health than do men while the opposite is found for the United States. The relationships between education, income and health were stronger in the United States than in Poland. Age, gender and SES may operate differently in the two countries because of a gap in social development (e.g. varying living standards and styles, health care systems and cultural attitudes) between the West and the former Eastern Europe.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.401 · 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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and MedicineSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207