MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049038422 · doi:10.2190/hs.39.2.f

Analyzing Differences in the Magnitude of Socioeconomic Inequalities in Self-Perceived Health by Countries of Different Political Tradition in Europe

2009· article· en· W2049038422 on OpenAlexaff
Carme Borrell, Albert Espelt, Maica Rodríguez‐Sanz, Bo Bur­ström, Carles Muntañer, M. Isabel Pasarín, Joan Benach, Chiara Marinacci, Albert‐Jan Roskam, M. Schaap, Enrique Regidor, Giuseppe Costa, Paula Santana, Patrick Deboosere, Anton E. Kunst, Vicente Navarro

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Services · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalitySocioeconomic statusEuropean Social SurveyPoliticsDemographic economicsWelfare stateDemocracyDeveloping countrySocial inequalityPopulationEconomic inequalitySociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study are to describe, for European countries, variations among political traditions in the magnitude of inequalities in self-perceived health by educational level and to determine whether these variations change when contextual welfare state, labor market, wealth, and income inequality variables are taken into account. In this cross-sectional study, the authors look at the population aged 25 to 64 in 13 European countries. Individual data were obtained from the Health Interview Surveys of each country. Educational-level inequalities in self-perceived health exist in all countries and in all political traditions, among both women and men. When countries are grouped by political tradition, social democratic countries are found to have the lowest educational-level 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health ServicesSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207