MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305938831

The effect of early age stunting on cognitive achievement among children in Vietnam

2009· article· en· W2305938831 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Le Thuc Duc

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordInternational Development Research CentreBernard van Leer FoundationIrish AidUNICEF
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusCognitionPovertyNexus (standard)PsychologyDemographyCognitive developmentDevelopmental psychologyPopulationEconomicsEconomic growthSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we use a longitudinal data set that follows three thousand children in Vietnam to study the economic significance of childhood poverty–cognitive achievement nexus. Focusing on the consequences of stunting, we look at height-for-age z-score (HAZ), and trace the impact of HAZ on child cognitive achievement independent of the source of HAZ’s variation - whether it comes from the variation in child characteristics at birth and the environmental factors, or in the household characteristics (stature, socioeconomic status, etc.). An increase by a standard deviation of HAZ at the age of one expectedly leads to an increase by one fourth of a standard deviation of the log score in a widely-used test of language ability at the age of five. For a quantitative cognitive achievement test, the corresponding figure is 0.20. Our evidence suggests that some of the disadvantages in socioeconomic status are being transmitted across generations.

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)0.003
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207