Evolution of Life Expectancy and Health Equity in Canadian Health Regions from 1986 to 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Life expectancy (LE) analysis was conducted in this study as an indicator to explore time trend for Canadians mortality rate from 1986 to 2007 by age and sex. Detect the factors that can impact on this, and measure the quality of life for Canadians. Objective: Measure Canadian’s LE by age, sex, provinces/territories and health regions, detect shorter LE in Canada due to variant lifestyle and socioeconomic status, compare the difference of Canadian LE among these areas over time. Results: Canadians’ LE at birth has increased 3.2 years in 1986-2007 in women, and 5.2 years in men. LE in British Columbia and Ontario were 81.2 and 81.0, higher than the average in Canada (80.7) in 2007. However, the highest increase of LE was PEI, 4.3 years higher than national average (4.2) level. Three top longest LE were Richmond Health Service Delivery Area (BC), York Regional Health Unit (ON), and Peel Regional Health Unit (ON) in compared to the three shortest LE Region du Nunavik (QC), Burntwood/Churchill (MB), and Nunavut Territory in both sexes. Conclusion: LE is lower for males than females, and shorter in the North than in the South due to poor living conditions, lack of primary health care, higher rates of smoking and heavy drinking and obesity, higher levels of longterm unemployment, fewer high school and university graduates, a relatively larger Aboriginal population and are generally rural and remote.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".