MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328588056 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800012460

Socio-economic Status and Self-Rated Health Among Older Canadians

2000· article· en· W2328588056 on OpenAlexaff
John Cairney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalitySelf-rated healthSocial supportPerspective (graphical)Social determinants of healthSocial positionConsumption (sociology)General Social SurveyAlcohol consumptionPosition (finance)Social psychologyGerontologyPublic healthMedicineSocial relationSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Although previous research has examined the various correlates of self-rated health, little attention has been paid to how position in the social structure influences this important measure of health. Drawing upon the social structure and personality perspective, I examine whether the relationship between socio-economic status (income adequacy and education) and self-rated health is mediated by financial stress, self-esteem, mastery, social support, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity, using data from the 1994 National Population Health Survey. Results show that almost one-third of the relationship can be explained by the mediating effect of these variables. Income adequacy and education, however, remain significantly related to self-rated health net of these variables. Further research with a broader array of variables related to social position is required to specify the mechanisms connecting socio-economic status and perceived 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)0.003
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations37
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207