Unemployment and Mortality: A Comparative Study of Germany and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examined the relationship between unemployment and mortality in Germany, a coordinated market economy, and the United States, a liberal market economy. METHODS: We followed 2 working-age cohorts from the German Socio-economic Panel and the US Panel Study of Income Dynamics from 1984 to 2005. We defined unemployment as unemployed at the time of survey. We used discrete-time survival analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: There was an unemployment-mortality association among Americans (relative risk [RR]=2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.7, 3.4), but not among Germans (RR=1.4; 95% CI=1.0, 2.0). In education-stratified models, there was an association among minimum-skilled (RR=2.6; 95% CI=1.4, 4.7) and medium-skilled (RR=2.4; 95% CI=1.5, 3.8) Americans, but not among minimum- and medium-skilled Germans. There was no association among high-skilled Americans, but an association among high-skilled Germans (RR=3.0; 95% CI=1.3, 7.0), although this was limited to those educated in East Germany. Minimum- and medium-skilled unemployed Americans had the highest absolute risks of dying. CONCLUSIONS: The higher risk of dying for minimum- and medium-skilled unemployed Americans, not found among Germans, suggests that the unemployment-mortality relationship may be mediated by the institutional and economic environment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".