MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3035938238

Is There A Long Run Nexus Among Mental Disorder And Socio-Economic Indicators? : Experiences From An Econometric Study Across 40 Countries

2020· article· en· W3035938238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramesh Chandra Das, Sovik Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Science Inquiry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationNexus (standard)EconomicsPer capitaPovertyGranger causalityCausality (physics)Per capita incomeMental healthDevelopment economicsGlobalizationDemographic economicsEconometricsEconomic growthPsychologyDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Are there evidences of an association between poor mental health and the experience of poverty and socio-economic deprivation? To explore it, we try to relate all sorts of mental disorders with the per-capita GDP (PCGDP), the level of per-capita CO2 emissions as a measure of pollution (PCCO), usage of Internet (IU) as a measure of social behaviour, and Globalization Index (GI), for all the major countries in the world. Applying Vector Autoregression (VAR) model the results reveal that most of the high income countries in the selection have produced the result that mental disorder is cointegrated to the four socio economic indicators. The short run causality tests unambiguously backs up the sustainability of the long run cointegration relations derived for countries like Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and UAE. Hence, mental disorder is not a problem to the lower income countries but to the high income countries as well.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Science Inquiry→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→