MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946065031 · doi:10.3386/w25846

Physician Bias and Racial Disparities in Health: Evidence from Veterans' Pensions

2019· report· en· W2946065031 on OpenAlexafffund
Shari Eli, Trevon D. Logan, Boriana Miloucheva

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Historical AssociationUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Institute on AgingConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsHealth equityRacial biasPsychologyRacial differencesMedicineActuarial scienceGerontologyEthnic groupPolitical scienceEconomicsRacismPublic healthNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate racial differences in longevity using records from cohorts of Union Army veterans.Since veterans received pensions based on proof of disability at medical exams, estimates of the causal effect of income on mortality may be biased, as sicker veterans received larger pensions.To circumvent endogeneity bias, we propose an exogenous source of variation in pension income: the judgment of the doctors who certified disability.We find that doctors appeared to discriminate against black veterans.The discrimination we observe is acute-we would not observe any racial mortality differences had physicians not been racially biased in determining pension awards.The effect of income on health was indeed large enough to close the black-white mortality gap in the period.Our work emphasizes that the large effects of physicians' attitudes on racial differentials in health, which persist today amongst both veterans and the civilian population, were equally prominent in the past.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.857
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207