MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2810196852 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2018.25504

Regional Inequalities in All-Cause and Premature Mortality in Ontario

2018· article· en· W2810196852 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David Henry, Emmalin Buajitti, Laura C. Rosella

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityMortality rateGeographyDemographySocioeconomicsEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although all-cause mortality rates have fallen in many countries in the last 40 years, the well-off and city dwellers have experienced the greatest gains. In this paper, we report on socio-economic and regional variations in premature mortality in Ontario. Premature mortality rates were highest in areas with the greatest degrees of social deprivation. While premature mortality continued to fall in the least deprived group, they flattened in the other groups and rose between 2000-2007 and 2008-2015 in the most deprived group. There were substantial variations in premature mortality rates across the Local Health Integration Networks, with the greatest disadvantage being seen in the southeast, northwest and northeast regions of Ontario. These data present a major challenge to policy makers. Health, social and economic policies need to be directed toward narrowing the gaps we have identified here. We have excellent metrics with which to measure their success.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→