Sex, age, deprivation and patterns in life expectancy in Quebec, Canada: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little research has evaluated disparities in life expectancy according to material deprivation taking into account differences across the lifespan between men and women. This study investigated age- and sex-specific life expectancy differentials related to area-level material deprivation for the province of Québec, Canada from 1989-2004. METHODS: Age- and sex-specific life expectancy across the lifespan was calculated for three periods (1989-1992, 1995-1998, and 2001-2004) for the entire Québec population residing in 162 community groupings ranked according to decile of material deprivation. Absolute and relative measures were calculated to summarize differences between the most and least deprived deciles. RESULTS: Life expectancy differentials between the most and least deprived deciles were greatest for men. Over time, male differentials increased for age 20 or more, with little change occurring at younger ages. For women, differentials increased across the lifespan and were comparable to men at advanced ages. Despite gains in life expectancy among men relative to women, differentials between men and women were greater for most deprived relative to least deprived deciles. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to the US, differentials in life expectancy associated with area-level material deprivation increased steadily in Québec from 1989-2004 for males and females of all ages. Differentials were comparable between men and women at advanced ages. Previous research indicating that life expectancy differentials between most and least deprived areas are greater in men may be due to a focus on younger age groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".