MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281634444 · doi:10.1111/cars.12384

Intergenerational reproduction and self‐rated health in Canada

2022· article· en· W4281634444 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerry Veenstra, Adam Vanzella‐Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusSocial classReproductionDemographyAgency (philosophy)PsychologySociologyPolitical sciencePopulationSocial scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intergenerational processes in which the socioeconomic status of middle- and upper-class parents is reproduced in their children have been extensively documented by social scientists. We mobilized a unique dataset, the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults (LISA) linked to income data from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), to investigate the relevance of intergenerational socioeconomic reproduction for inequalities in self-rated health in a national sample of Canadians aged 25 to 50. We found strong intergenerational elasticities implicating both parental education and parental family income in the acquisition of both personal education and personal family income. Parental education was not significantly associated with self-rated health. Parental family income was significantly associated with self-rated health among women only, partly explained by the socioeconomic status of the women themselves. These results suggest that intergenerational reproduction plays a small role in the generation of high levels of self-rated health among Canadian women but not among Canadian men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207