MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088604295 · doi:10.1002/hec.1015

Making health continuous: implications of different methods on the measurement of inequality

2005· article· en· W2088604295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ann Lecluyse, Irina Cleemput

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityIndex (typography)Categorical variableEconometricsVariable (mathematics)Probit modelOrdered probitContinuous variableMathematicsStatisticsEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most national surveys, health is measured as a categorical variable. However, in order to be able to calculate socio-economic inequalities in health, a continuous variable is needed. The recently developed interval regression approach was shown to outperform to other approaches like ordered probit. In this research we investigate the impact of using different sets of external data to estimate health inequalities: the EQ-index and the Canadian HUI. We found that the concentration index differs, but the income-related health mobility index and its decomposition are highly similar.

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)0.244
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.605
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2440.605
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.161 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207