Form and its health functions : socioeconomic status-based network homophily and the personal health of canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exists a well-documented positive association between social relationships and health. While much of this research has focused on mediating mechanisms through which network ties function to maintain or improve health, little attention has been given to network form, an important feature that likely influences network function. One particularly salient network form is homophily – the observed tendency for people to associate with those who are like themselves. In the present study, I propose and test several hypotheses regarding how homophily in terms of socioeconomic status (SES) influences personal health by structuring the support and resources available to individuals and how these relationships are moderated by an individual’s own SES. Analyses of nationally representative Canadian data reveal SES homophily to be directly and indirectly associated with personal mental and general health. However, these associations are dependent upon the type of homophily (education- or income-based), the health outcome in question, and at times, individual SES. These findings indicate the unique contribution of homophily for health and suggest that future research on social relationships and health should consider networks in terms of form as well as function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".