Does the population size of a city matter to its older adults’ self-rated health? Results of China data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clarifying the association between city population size and older adults' health is vital in understanding the health disparity across different cities in China. Using a nationally representative dataset, this study employed Multilevel Mixed-effects Probit regression models and Sorting Analysis to elucidate this association, taking into account the sorting decisions made by older adults. The main results of the study include: (1) The association between city population size and the self-rated health of older adults shifts from a positive linear to an inverted U-shaped relationship once individual socioeconomic status is controlled for; the socioeconomic development of cities, intertwined with the growth of their populations, plays a pivotal role in yielding health benefits. (2) There is a sorting effect in older adults' residential decisions; compared to cities with over 5 million residents, unobserved factors result in smaller cities hosting more less-healthy older adults, which may cause overestimation of health benefits in cities with greater population size. (3) The evolving socioeconomic and human-made environment resulting from urban population growth introduces health risks for migratory older adults but yields benefits for those with local resident status who are male, aged over 70, and have lower living standards and socioeconomic status. And (4) The sorting effects are more pronounced among older adults with greater resources supporting their mobility or those without permanent local resident status. Thus, policymakers should adapt planning and development strategies to consider the intricate relationship between city population size and the health of older adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".