Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article examines determinants of self-perceived health. Factors associated with very good/excellent rather than good health are compared with those associated with fair/poor rather than good health. DATA SOURCE: The data are from the household cross-sectional and longitudinal components of the first three cycles (1994/95, 1996/97 and 1998/99) of Statistics Canada's National Population Health Survey (NPHS). ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Cross-tabulations from the 1998/99 NPHS cross-sectional file were used to estimate the prevalence of very good/excellent and fair/poor health by sex and age group. Based on the longitudinal file, predictors of health perceptions in 1998/99 were studied in a multivariate model using generalized logistic regression. MAIN RESULTS: While physical conditions were strongly related to health perceptions, some lifestyle, socio-economic and psychosocial factors were also statistically significant. Heavy smoking, irregular exercise and overweight were associated with fair/poor health ratings. Unhealthy changes in lifestyle were associated with fair/poor rather than good health. Distress, low self-esteem and low socio-economic status were negatively associated with very good/excellent health.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".