MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2890288407 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.929

The Shape of the Socioeconomic Gradient: Testing to Functional Form of the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Early Child Development

2018· article· en· W2890288407 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simon Webb, Magdalena Janus, Eric Duku, Barry Forer, Anita Minh, Marni Brownell, Nazeem Muhajarine, Martin Guhn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of ManitobaLearning PartnershipManitoba HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusAkaike information criterionChild developmentPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographyEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionThe literature provides abundant evidence of socioeconomic gradients in health outcomes. However, it is unclear, and particularly understudied in early child development research, whether these observed gradients are linear, whether they diminish as socioeconomic status (SES) increases, and if they ultimately reverse in slope at the highest SES values. Objectives and ApproachWe linked neighbourhood-level Census and Tax Filer data with Early Development Instrument (EDI) data across Canada. The EDI is a kindergarten teacher-completed measure of five domains of early child development. We used this linked database to statistically compare and choose the most appropriate functional form of the relationship between each of the EDI domains (dependent variables), and the Canadian Neighbourhoods and Early Child Development (CanNECD) study's SES index (predictor) in regression models. Model comparison approaches included: visual checks of lines fitted using Generalized Additive Models, Akaike and Bayesian Information Criterions, Ramsay’s RESET, J and Cox tests. ResultsThe results indicate the optimal functional form of the gradient varies across domains of the EDI. The best model for the Physical Health and Well-Being domain was quadratic, suggesting there may be some reversal in slope at higher values of SES. The best models for the Social Competence and Language and Cognitive Development domains were logarithmic, indicating diminishing returns to SES but with no slope reversal. The best model for the Emotional Maturity domain was linear, suggesting the gradient was consistent across all values of SES. The best fit for the Communication Skills and General Knowledge domain was a cubic ‘S’ curve, suggesting the curve is positive and concave for lower levels of SES but curves upwards beyond a certain SES threshold. Conclusion/ImplicationsThe results demonstrate the importance of examining functional forms when modeling socioeconomic gradients. Assuming linear relationships between SES and health outcomes (early child development, in this case) may distort and bias the true nature of the relationships, thus leading to misinterpretations, especially at the highest and lowest values of SES.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data Science→Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→