Differences in the effect of homeownership on health status across health regions in Alberta, 2011-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The housing we live in - from the type and the location to our homeownership status - impacts our health status. Housing is one of the most central environments individuals live in, and as a socio-economic determinant of health, has disproportionate impact on certain groups. Previous research indicates that homeowners tend to have better health than renters. However, this relationship changes when living in unaffordable housing. Organizations have issued numerous warnings about rising unaffordability, debt, and home prices in Canada. In this paper, I focus on the effects of homeownership status in the five different health regions in Alberta, stratified by housing affordability. Using Statistics Canada’s Canadian Community Health Survey from 2011- 2012 in a logistic multivariate regression, I find that homeownership is positively associated with self-reported good or better health status, but that the association was smaller in less affordable regions. This suggests living in regions that are less affordable dampens the health benefits of homeownership. These findings also support the the idea that homeownership is more than a proxy for socioeconomic status and has its own effects on health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".