MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166565928 · doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000061

A Multiple-Process Latent Transition Model of Poverty and Health

2012· article· en· W2166565928 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Sacker, Diana Worts, Peggy McDonough

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsPovertyBritish Household Panel SurveyCovariateLongitudinal dataLongitudinal studyPsychologyLatent growth modelingEconometricsDemographic economicsDevelopmental psychologyEconomicsDemographyStatisticsMathematicsSociologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health researchers often use the life-course perspective, exploring how long-range experiences in one life domain may influence, and be influenced by, those in another. We develop a multiple-process latent transition model (MPLTM) to estimate changes in health and poverty dynamics simultaneously, using repeated measures of self-rated health and income for working-aged adults from the British Household Panel Survey. We apply the model to quantify concurrent and longitudinal effects to assess whether changes in these two processes are related or independent. Model extensions add time-invariant (cohort, gender) and time-varying (weeks nonemployed in previous year) covariates. We find both concurrent and bidirectional longitudinal relationships between poverty and health, with nonemployment appearing to mediate longitudinal health-to-poverty effects and confound longitudinal poverty-to-health effects. The MPLTM can provide quantitative estimates of complex interlocking processes that are often difficult to measure and assess.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.523
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodologySame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207