Life course epidemiology: Modeling educational attainment with administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the processes across childhood and adolescence that affect later life inequalities depends on many variables for a large number of individuals measured over substantial time periods. Linkable administrative data were used to generate birth cohorts and to study pathways of inequity in childhood and early adolescence leading to differences in educational attainment. Advantages and disadvantages of using large administrative data bases for such research were highlighted. METHODS: Children born in Manitoba, Canada between 1982 and 1995 were followed until age 19 (N = 89,763), with many time-invariant measures serving as controls. Five time-varying predictors of high school graduation-three social and two health-were modelled using logistic regression and a framework for examining predictors across the life course. For each time-varying predictor, six temporal patterns were tested: full, accumulation of risk, sensitive period, and three critical period models. RESULTS: Predictors measured in early adolescence generated the highest odds ratios, suggesting the importance of adolescence. Full models provided the best fit for the three time-varying social measures. Residence in a low-income neighborhood was a particularly influential predictor of not graduating from high school. The transmission of risk across developmental periods was also highlighted; exposure in one period had significant implications for subsequent life stages. CONCLUSION: This study advances life course epidemiology, using administrative data to clarify the relationships among several measures of social behavior, cognitive development, and health. Analyses of temporal patterns can be useful in studying such other outcomes as educational achievement, teen pregnancy, and workforce participation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".