MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic Recessions and Infant Mortality in the U.S., 1999-2008

2014· article· en· W2169065688 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Bishai, Qingfeng Li, Sai Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Health and Nutrition · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRecessionKeynesian economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Prior studies of US data from the 1990s have shown that economic growth is associated with higher all cause mortality. This paper updates prior findings to more recent data on US infant mortality for blacks and whites. Methods: We analyzed data from 50 US states from 1999 to 2008 using state fixed-effects regression models stratified to identify the racially disparate impact of each state’s economic performance on infant mortality, controlling for state policy-related variables, reflecting population,% black, % on TANF, % on Medicaid, and alcohol consumption. Results: Economic recessions are significantly associated with lower post-neonatal mortality for white infants, but not black infants. Each 1% decrement a state’s gross state product, would be associated with an approximately 2.3 fewer infant deaths (95% CI: -0.294-4.894) in an average state with 64,000 total births. Results were robust to the inclusion of state trends, national trends, state fixed effects, lagged gross state product, and the inclusion of measures of unemployment and state policy variables. Conclusions: This study in combination with studies from the 1990s reflects growing evidence that economic growth in the US can be harmful to child health. Policy makers need to be informed and mindful about the “side effects” of economic growth on 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 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)0.002
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Health and NutritionSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207