MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910895471 · doi:10.1007/s13209-019-0201-0

The effect of education on health: evidence from national compulsory schooling reforms

2019· article· en· W2910895471 on OpenAlexaff
Raquel Fonseca, Pierre‐Carl Michaud, Yuhui Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueSERIEs · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on OrganizationsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsEndogeneityProbitProbit modelMultivariate probit modelOrdered probitEconomicsDemographic economicsCompulsory educationEconometricsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper sheds light on the causal relationship between education and health outcomes. We combine three surveys (SHARE, HRS and ELSA) that include nationally representative samples of people aged 50 and over from fourteen OECD countries. We use variation in the timing of educational reforms across these countries as an instrument for education. Using IV-probit models, we find causal evidence that more years of education lead to better health. One additional year of schooling is associated with 6.85 percentage points (pp) reduction in reporting poor health and 3.8 pp and 4.6 pp reduction in having self-reported difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs, respectively. The marginal effect of education on the probability of having a chronic illness is a 4.4 pp reduction. This ranges from a reduction of 3.4 pp for heart disease to a 7 pp reduction for arthritis. The effects are larger than those from a probit model that does not control for the endogeneity of education. However, we do not find conclusive evidence that education reduces the risk of cancer, stroke and psychiatric illness.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSERIEsSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207