Who loses more? Identifying the relationship between hospitalization and income loss: prediction of hospitalization duration and differences of gender and employment status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The major determinants of health and well-being include wider socio-economic and political responses to poverty alleviation. To data, however, South Korea has no related social protection policies to replace income loss or prevent non-preferable health conditions for workers. In particular, there are several differences in social protection policies by gender or occupational groups. This study aimed to investigate how hospitalization affects income loss among workers in South Korea. METHODS: The study sample included 4876 Korean workers who responded to the Korean Welfare Panel Study (KoWePS) for all eight years from 2009 to 2016. We conducted a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to determine the cut-off point for the length of hospitalization that corresponded to the greatest loss of income. We used panel multi-linear regression to examine the relationship between hospitalization and income loss by gender and employment arrangement. RESULTS: The greatest income loss for women in non-standard employment and self-employed men was observed when the length of hospitalization was seven days or less. When they were hospitalized for more than 14 days, income loss also occurred among men in non-standard employment. In addition, when workers were hospitalized for more than 14 days, the impact of the loss of income was felt into the subsequent year. CONCLUSION: Non-standard and self-employed workers, and even female standard workers, are typically excluded from public insurance coverage in South Korea, and social security is insufficient when they are injured. To protect workers from the vicious circle of the poverty-health trap, national social protections such as sickness benefits are needed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".