MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386472700 · doi:10.33921/kheb9671

In Sickness and in Wealth: Mental Health, Income Levels, and COVID-19

2023· article· en· W4386472700 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hailey Pawsey, Kenneth M. Cramer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Relations Intergroup Relations and Identity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthWorrySocial distanceSocioeconomic statusSocial isolationDistressAnxietyPsychologyPandemicAffect (linguistics)PsychiatryLonelinessCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographyMedicineClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthPopulationDiseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, COVID-19 has brought upon many challenges to mental health. Social distancing and isolation have led people to experience greater anxiety and negative affect, and financial distress has increased due to economic changes. Demographic features may differentiate the severity of distress individuals face. Using data from The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), the present study examined measures of psychological distress across a Canadian sample, identifying differences in age, sex, and income levels. Trends over time were observed. Lower-income Canadians reported higher distress. Women may be at greater risk than men, as well as younger compared to older Canadians. Psychological distress has remained relatively stable throughout the pandemic, although COVID-19 financial worry has lessened as people are not as worried about their finances. The findings of this study are informative of socioeconomic, sex, and age differences in mental health throughout the pandemic in a Canadian sample.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal Relations Intergroup Relations and IdentitySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207