MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272701738 · doi:10.1002/hec.3823

How much does birth weight matter for child health in developing countries? Estimates from siblings and twins

2018· article· en· W2272701738 on OpenAlex
Mark E. McGovern

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastNational Institute on AgingHarvard University
KeywordsWastingInstrumental variableDeveloping countryMedicineBirth weightLow birth weightEstimationChild healthDemographyEnvironmental healthSiblingSelection biasPediatricsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPregnancyEconomicsEconometricsBiologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About 200 million children globally are not meeting their growth potential, and as a result will suffer the consequences in terms of future outcomes. I examine the effects of birth weight on child health and growth using information from 66 countries. I account for missing data and measurement error using instrumental variables and adopt an identification strategy based on siblings and twins. I find a consistent effect of birth weight on mortality risk, stunting, wasting, and coughing, with some evidence for fever, diarrhoea, and anaemia. Bounds analysis indicates that coefficients may be substantially underestimated due to mortality selection. Improving the pre-natal environment is likely to be important for helping children reach their full potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · 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