MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142416885 · doi:10.1920/wp.ifs.2014.1411

The socio-economic gradient of child development: cross-sectional evidence from children 6-42 months in Bogota

2017· report· en· W2142416885 on OpenAlexaff
Orazio Attanasio, Sally Grantham‐McGregor, Costas Meghir, Marta Rubio Codina, Natalia Varela

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPsychologyGeographySocioeconomicsEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the socio-economic gradient of child development on a representative sample of low- and middle-income children aged 6-42 months in Bogota, using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, a high quality test based on direct observation of the child's abilities. We find a statistically significant difference between children in the 90th and 10th percentile of the wealth distribution in our sample of 0.33 standard deviations (SD) in cognition, 0.29 SD in receptive language and 0.38 SD in expressive language at 14 months. The socio-economic gap increases substantially with age to 1 SD (cognition), 0.80 SD (receptive language) and 0.69 SD (expressive language) by 42 months. While the gap persists after controlling for mediating factors such as parental and biomedical characteristics, the level of stimulation in the home, and the quality of the institutional care setting; its size is significantly reduced by variables related to the home environment - i.e. parental investments in care quantity and quality. These findings have important implications for the design of well-targeted, effective and timely interventions that promote early childhood development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations56
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207