MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460760795 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2015-064

Economic Insecurity and the Weight Gain of Canadian Adults: A Natural Experiment Approach

2016· article· en· W2460760795 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Barry Watson, Lars Osberg, Shelley Phipps

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentWeight gainBody mass indexPopulation healthEconomicsJob insecurityObesityDemographic economicsNatural experimentIndex (typography)Health economicsPopulationRecessionDemographyMedicineBody weightEconomic growthSociologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using four cycles of longitudinal National Population Health Survey (NPHS) data from 1994 to 2001, we examine whether increasing economic insecurity causes weight gain and obesity. In July 1996, Bill C-12 reduced Canadian unemployment insurance benefits considerably, arguably increasing the economic insecurity of Canadians exposed to unemployment risk. Using a difference-in-difference methodology, this paper compares the change in weight gain of adults 25 to 64 before and after this policy shift. For poorly educated males, the onset of unemployment in the post-policy change era is predicted to increase their body mass index (BMI) by 3.2 points.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207