MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Poverty Gets Under the Skin: A Life Course Perspective

2012· book-chapter· en· W229069729 on OpenAlexaff
Gary W. Evans, Edith Chen, Gregory E. Miller, Teresa E. Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife course approachDisadvantagePerspective (graphical)PovertySocioeconomic statusDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyGerontologyMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a large epidemiological literature documenting inverse relations between socioeconomic status (SES) and morbidity as well as mortality. In this chapter we focus on biological mechanisms to explain how disadvantage gets under the skin. We adopt a life course perspective on this topic because it illuminates several issues: whether the timing and duration of exposure to disadvantage over the life course matter, and factors that may cause biological mechanisms, changed by deprivation in early life, to persist throughout the life course. This chapter is organized into 5 major sections. Sections 1 through 3 review evidence linking SES or one of its primary constituents to disease-relevant biological mechanisms during childhood, during adulthood, and prospectively from childhood to adulthood, respectively, and section 4 examines the durability of early life deprivation and altered trajectories in biological mechanisms over the life course. We conclude with section 5, which presents a research agenda and discusses intervention consequences of a life course perspective on the biology of disadvantage.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations75
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207