MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246066436 · doi:10.5172/hesr.2014.4456

Endogenous social capital and self-rated health: Results from Canada’s General Social Survey

2014· article· en· W4246066436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nazim Habibov, Robert D. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Sociology Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogeneitySocial capitalBivariate analysisProbit modelGeneral Social SurveyMultivariate probit modelInstrumental variablePopulation healthSelf-rated healthProbitPopulationSurvey data collectionCausality (physics)PsychologySocial psychologySociologyEconometricsEconomicsDemographyStatisticsSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we analyze data from Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey, a cross-sectional and nationally representative survey of Canada’s population, to assess the impact of three dimensions of social capital on self-rated health. We measure these dimensions, which consist of social networks and social support, civic participation and social participation, with a comprehensive set of 5 indicators. To avoid reverse causality due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, we employ an instrumental variable simultaneous equations bivariate probit regression model. Our findings indicate that all of the tested dimensions of social capital have a positive and significant impact on self-rated health. These findings suggest that social capital plays an important role in enhancing the health of Canada’s population. Endogeneity was detected in all of our estimations. Consequently, this study also has important methodological implications in that we demonstrate that relying solely on naive estimations leads to biased results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Sociology ReviewSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207