MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573264301 · doi:10.4135/9781526406347

Assessing the View From Bottom: How to Measure Socioeconomic Position and Relative Deprivation in Adolescents

2017· book· en· W2573264301 on OpenAlexaff
Frank J. Elgar, Annie Xie, Timo‐Kolja Pförtner, James White, Kate E. Pickett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusRelative deprivationScale (ratio)Index (typography)PsychologyInequalitySocial classPosition (finance)Social deprivationGeographyDemographySociologySocial psychologyEconomicsEconomic growthPopulationComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessments of socioeconomic position (SEP) and relative deprivation are important to many areas of child and adolescent research. These related constructs are typically measured using data on household income or parental education or occupation. However, because such data can be difficult to collect in youth surveys, the World Health Organisation’s Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study uses an inventory of common material assets in the home. The HBSC Family Affluence Scale is used to measure socioeconomic conditions in 11- to 15-year-olds in over 40 countries. This article examines the importance of SEP and relative deprivation to adolescent health and demonstrates simple calculations of these variables using the data from the Family Affluence Scale. We show how to transform a summation of material assets to a SEP index and apply Yitzhaki’s (1979) index of relative deprivation to material assets using schoolmates as a social comparison group. These calculations are useful to investigating the contextual determinants of health and developmental inequalities in young people and can be modified for other socioeconomic variables in and populations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207