Intergenerational social mobility and self-rated health in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research seeks to reveal the health effects of 'falling from grace' or 'rising from rags,' i.e., experiencing downward or upward mobility relative to one's family socioeconomic background. In this study, we mobilized a unique dataset, the 2012 Longitudinal and International Study of Adults linked to historical income data from the Canada Revenue Agency, to investigate associations between both educational and income mobility and self-rated health in a national sample of approximately 2500 women and 2300 men aged 25 to 50. Compared to educational immobility, extreme downward educational mobility corresponded to elevated odds of reporting good/fair/poor health among women (OR = 3.053; 95% CI = 0.991 … 9.393). Compared to income immobility, downward income mobility in general (OR = 1.533; 95% CI = 1.115 … 2.106) and extreme downward income mobility in particular (OR = 2.389; 95% CI = 1.481 … 3.854) both corresponded to elevated odds of reporting good/fair/poor health among women. Among men, extreme upward income mobility (OR = 0.674; 95% CI = 0.463 … 0.984) corresponded to reduced odds of reporting good/fair/poor health and extreme downward income mobility (OR = 2.237; 95% CI = 1.157 … 4.323) corresponded to elevated odds of reporting good/fair/poor health, compared to men with immobile incomes. In summary, upward income mobility was beneficial for men's self-rated health, downward educational mobility was detrimental to the self-rated health of women, and downward income mobility was detrimental to the self-rated health of both women and men in this Canadian study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".