Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article updates information on the leading causes of death for people aged 65 or older, and examines factors associated with death in seniors over an eight-year period. The analysis focuses on psychosocial factors--psychological distress, financial and family stress--in relation to mortality. DATA SOURCES: Data are from the Canadian Mortality Database and the 1994/95 to 2002/03 National Population Health Survey (NPHS), longitudinal file. The NPHS sample analysed contains records for 955 men and 1,445 women. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Death certificate information for 2002 and Census population estimates were used to calculate death rates and rank causes of death. NPHS data were cross-tabulated to examine selected characteristics reported in 1994/95 in relation to vital status (dead or alive) by 2002/03. Cox regression was used to calculate hazards ratios for psychological distress, financial and family-related stress in relation to subsequent mortality, while controlling for the effects of age, chronic diseases, and other potential confounders. MAIN RESULTS: In senior women, psychological distress in 1994/95 was positively associated with mortality over the next eight years, even when controlling for the effects of other variables. The statistical significance of this relationship in senior men disappeared when controlling for chronic conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".