MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952161056 · doi:10.1080/00324728.2019.1618480

Tracking progress in mean longevity: The Lagged Cohort Life Expectancy (LCLE) approach

2019· article· en· W2952161056 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michel Guillot, Collin Payne

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsLongevityLife expectancyCohortTracking (education)DemographyEconometricsStatisticsGerontologyPsychologyEconomicsMedicineMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cohort life expectancy is an important but rarely used indicator of mean longevity. In this paper, we show that there are specific advantages in lagging this indicator in time by its own value, an approach termed Lagged Cohort Life Expectancy (LCLE). We discuss the usefulness of LCLE as an indicator for tracking progress in mean longevity and introduce a new interpretation of LCLE as a reference age separating 'early' deaths from 'late' deaths, or, equivalently, as the age above which individuals in a population can be considered 'above-average' survivors. Using data from 15 countries in the Human Mortality Database, we show that current LCLE can be estimated with a relatively high degree of certainty, at least in these low-mortality populations. Results shed new light on levels and trends in mean longevity in these populations.

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)0.020
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation StudiesSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207