MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895579493 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.23152

Global country‐level estimates of associations between adult height and the distribution of income

2018· article· en· W2895579493 on OpenAlexaff
M. Christopher Auld

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)DemographyGeographyDemographic economicsEconomicsMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article presents the first estimates of global associations between adult height and the distribution of income, and considers the roles of regional heterogeneity, heterogeneity across low- and high-income countries, and of infant mortality as a potential mediator. METHODS: Linear parametric and semiparametric regressions predicting mean height and sexual dimorphism in height are estimated using data on one cohort born in 1996 with height measured in 2016. Measurement error in income inequality is addressed using an instrumental variables method. RESULTS: Across countries higher income per capita is strongly associated with higher mean height, and higher income inequality is associated with lower mean height after holding mean income constant. These relationships vary with mean income: at low incomes, higher mean income strongly predicts greater height but income inequality has no statistically significant effect, whereas for high-income countries, only higher income inequality predicts lower height, and only in Europe. Sexual dimorphism in height is positively associated with mean income at low incomes, but it is not related to income inequality. CONCLUSIONS: Controlling for income inequality has modest effects on a positive height-income gradient. Greater inequality predicts lower height after holding income per capita constant, suggesting that mean height should be used with caution as a proxy for standard of living in some contexts. The extent to which these associations reflect causality running from economic conditions to height cannot be determined from these results.

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)0.000
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207