MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585204901 · doi:10.1111/roiw.12293

Does Economic Insecurity Cause Weight Gain Among Canadian Labor Force Participants?

2017· article· en· W2585204901 on OpenAlex
Barry Watson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsPopulation healthBody mass indexDemographic economicsObesityIndex (typography)PopulationCausality (physics)DemographyRecessionConsumer confidence indexMedicineEnvironmental healthHealth careEconomic growthMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Population Health Survey (NPHS) suggests that for labor force participants age 25 to 64, the prevalence of self‐reported obesity in Canada has increased from 16 percent in 1998 to 23 percent in 2008. Using six cycles of NPHS data (1998–2009), I explore Canada's obesity dilemma by considering the effect of economic insecurity—measured as the probability of an individual experiencing a severe negative economic shock. As an identification strategy, a fixed effects model is employed to control for unobserved time‐invariant heterogeneity and a set of instruments based on an individual's economic environment are specified in order to isolate causality. Results suggest that for males age 25 to 64, a 1 percent increase in economic insecurity is predicted to increase their body mass index (BMI) by 0.10 points. For females age 25 to 64, the association between economic insecurity and BMI is statistically insignificant at conventional confidence levels.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.360 · 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