Modelling Maternal Depression: An Agent-Based Model to Examine the Complex Relationship between Relative Income and Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression is a major public health concern among expectant mothers in Canada. Income inequality has been linked to depression, so interventions for reducing income inequality may reduce the prevalence of maternal depression. The current study aims to simulate the effects of government transfers and increases to minimum wage on depression in mothers. We used agent-based modelling techniques to identify the predicted effects of income inequality reducing programs on maternal depression. Model parameters were identified using the All Our Families cohort dataset and the existing literature. The mean age of our sample was 30 years. The sample was also predominantly white (78.6%) and had at least some post-secondary education (89.1%). When income was increased by just simulating an increase in minimum wage, the proportion of depressed mothers decreased by 2.9% (p < 0.005). Likewise, simulating the Canada Child Benefit resulted in a 5.0% decrease in the prevalence of depression (p < 0.001) and Ontario’s Universal Basic Income pilot project resulted in a simulated 5.6% decrease in the prevalence of depression (p < 0.001). We also assessed simulated changes to the mother’s social networks. Progressive income policies and increasing social networks are predicted to decrease the probability of depression.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".