Social Class and BMI Among Canadian Adults: A Focus on Occupational Prestige
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to examine BMI of working-age Canadian adults in relation to occupational prestige, adjusting for other aspects of social class including household income and respondent's education. We analyzed data from 49,252 adults (age 25-64) from Cycle 2.1 of the Canadian Community Health Survey, a cross-sectional self-report survey conducted in 2003. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relation between BMI and occupational prestige, adjusting for other sociodemographic variables. For women, higher ranking occupations showed lower average BMI relative to the lowest ranking occupations, but this effect was largely eliminated when adjusting for education. For men, occupation effects endured in adjusted models and we detected some evidence of a pattern whereby men in occupations characterized by management/supervisory responsibilities were heavier than those in the lowest ranking occupations (i.e., elemental sales and service). Results are interpreted in light of the symbolic value of body size in western culture, which differs for men and women. Men in positions of management/supervision may benefit from the physical dominance conveyed by a larger body size, and thus occupational prestige rankings may help us to understand the gender differences in the patterning of BMI by different indicators of social class.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".