Income-related children’s health inequality and health achievement in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study assessed income-related health inequality and health achievement in children in China, and additionally, examined province-level variations in health achievement. METHODS: Longitudinal data on 19,801 children under 18 years of age were derived from the China Health and Nutrition Survey. Income-related health inequality and health achievement were measured by the Health Concentration and Health Achievement Indices, respectively. Panel data with a fixed effect multiple regression model was employed to examine province-level variations in health achievement. RESULTS: A growing trend was towards greater health inequality among Chinese children over the last two decades. Although health achievement was getting better over time, the pro-rich inequality component has lessened the associated gain in achievement. Health achievement was positively impacted by middle school enrollments, the urbanization rate, inflation-adjusted per capita gross domestic product, and per capita public health spending. CONCLUSION: This study has provided evidence that average health status of Chinese children has improved, but inequality has widened. Widening inequality slowed the growth in health achievement for children over time. There were wide variations in health achievement throughout China.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it