Competing Forces of Socioeconomic Development and Environmental Degradation on Health and Happiness for Different Income Groups in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China's rapid socioeconomic growth in recent years and the simultaneous increase in many forms of pollution are generating contradictory pictures of residents' well-being. This paper applies multilevel analysis to the 2013 China General Social Survey data on social development and health to understand this twofold phenomenon. Multilevel models are developed to investigate the impact of socioeconomic development and environmental degradation on self-reported health (SRH) and self-reported happiness (SRHP), differentiating among lower, middle, and higher income groups. The results of the logit multilevel analysis demonstrate that income, jobs, and education increased the likelihood of rating SRH and SRHP positively for the lower and middle groups but had little or no effect on the higher income group. Having basic health insurance had an insignificant effect on health but increased the likelihood of happiness among the lower income group. Provincial-level pollutants were associated with a higher likelihood of good health for all income groups, and community-level industrial pollutants increased the likelihood of good health for the lower and middle income groups. Measures of community-level pollution were robust predictors of the likelihood of unhappiness among the lower and middle income groups. Environmental hazards had a mediating effect on the relationship between socioeconomic development and health, and socioeconomic development strengthened the association between environmental hazards and happiness. These outcomes indicate that the complex interconnections among socioeconomic development and environmental degradation have differential effects on well-being among different income groups in China.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".