Comparing Predictors of Positive and Negative Self-Rated Health Between Younger (25-54) and Older (55+) Canadian Adults
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
The objectives of this study were to explore age variations in predictors of positive and negative self-rated health and examine whether the determinants of positive and negative self-rated health are mirror images. Longitudinal data were used from the National Population Health Survey for a nationally representative cohort of Canadians aged 25 years and older ( N = 9,371) to predict positive and negative self-rated health among younger and older Canadian adults separately. Self-rated health was confirmed as a multidimensional concept. There were variations in determinants of positive and negative self-rated health for the younger and the older Canadian adults. Determinants of self-rated health include but are not limited to physical health and functioning. Self-rated health is a dynamic evaluation influenced by changes over time in individuals' physical and psychosocial health, genetic endowment, socioeconomic status and health behaviors. Determinants of positive and negative self-rated health are not mirror images.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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