MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042156354 · doi:10.1080/1177083x.2009.9522447

Identifying health inequalities between Māori and non‐Māori using mortality tables

2009· article· en· W2042156354 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Bebbington, Matthew R. Goddard, Chin‐Diew Lai, Ričardas Zitikis

Bibliographic record

VenueKōtuitui New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMassey University
KeywordsLife expectancyLife tableMortality rateInequalityDemographyTable (database)Raw dataHazardStatisticsGeographyMedicineMathematicsComputer sciencePopulationSociologyBiologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While there is a need for more detailed information on health inequality to guide public health policy, the most complete and easily available data remain those in mortality tables. We investigate, via a comparative analysis of data from New Zealand on Māori and non‐Māori mortality, whether more detailed information than raw life expectancy may be extracted from the mortality tables. Given a parametric distribution for the mortality capable of fitting irregularities in mortality table data, the curvature of the survival and hazard rates can identify changes in mortality rates, such as infant and late‐life adult mortality, which allows for straightforward comparisons between the two sub‐populations. Our results identify an exogenous effect in earlier mortality among Maori, which correlates well with many published observations of health and health‐care inequalities between Māori and non‐Māori. This “proof of concept” for our method of analysis indicates that examination of bulk data such as those in mortality tables has a potential role in the design of more detailed studies involving causes of mortality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKōtuitui New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences OnlineSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207