International shortfall inequality in life expectancy in women and in men, 1950-2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess international shortfall inequality in life expectancy at birth among women and men and the influence of geography and country income group. METHODS: The authors used estimates of life expectancy at birth, by sex, for 12 five-year periods between 1950-1955 and 2005-2010 and estimates of population for the midpoints of each period from the World population prospects, 2008 revision. Shortfall inequality was defined as the weighted average of the deviations of each country's average life expectancy by sex from the highest attained life expectancy by sex for each period. FINDINGS: International shortfall inequalities in life expectancy among men and among women decreased between 1950 and 1975 but stagnated thereafter. International shortfall inequality in life expectancy has been higher in women than in men, ranging from 1.9 to 2.9 years. Women in low-income countries have the biggest shortfall, currently at around 26.7 years. CONCLUSION: International shortfall inequality is higher among women than men primarily because women in low-income and lower-middle-income country groups show larger differences in life expectancy than men. Further investigation is needed to determine the pathways causing these inequalities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".