MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789505971

Socioeconomic Inequalities in Different Types of Disabilities in Iran.

2018· article· en· W2789505971 on OpenAlexaff
Ghobad Moradi, Farideh Mostafavi, Mohammad Hajizadeh, Mohammad Amerzade, Amjad Mohamadi Bolbanabad, Cyrus Alinia, Bakhtiar Piroozi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMedicineConfidence intervalDemographyInequalityBlindnessIndex (typography)CensusCross-sectional studyPopulationEnvironmental healthGerontologyOptometryMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study measured socioeconomic inequalities in different types of disabilities in Iran. We also examined the prevalence of disabilities across different socio-demographic groups in Iran in 2011. METHODS: This was cross-sectional study using secondary data analysis on all Iranian. Data related to disability prevalence and socioeconomic status (SES) of each province was extracted from the 2011 National Census of Population and Housing (NCPH) and the 2011 Households Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), conducted by Statistical Center of Iran (SCI). The concentration index and concentration curve were used to measure and illustrate socioeconomic inequalities in different types of disabilities. Chi-squared test was also used to examine the relationship between the socio-demographic variables (age-groups, sex, education level, employment status) and disability. RESULTS: <0.05). CONCLUSION: There were significant socioeconomic inequalities in different types of disabilities in Iran with poorer provinces having higher prevalence of disabilities in blindness, deafness, vocal disorders and hand disorders. Strategies to address the higher prevalence of different types of disabilities among poorer provinces should be considered a priority in Iran.

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)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207