The association between allostatic load and guaranteed annual income using the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging: A cross-sectional analysis of the benefits of guaranteed public pensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Old Age Security (OAS) represents an public policy through which income-related inequalities in health may be improved. The goal of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the health benefits of receiving OAS in financially insecure older Canadians. Using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) (n=15,691), ordered logistic regression was used to measure associations between financial insecurity and allostatic load. Receiving OAS as highest personal income source appeared to remove the health penalty of being financially insecure. While financial insecurity was associated with worse allostatic load in both males and females not receiving OAS, those receiving OAS as highest personal income source had better allostatic load compared to other financially insecure older adults (ORM: 0.398, 95% CI: 0.227, 0.696; ORF: 0.677, 95% CI: 0.483, 0.949). While longitudinal data would be needed to draw causal inferences, these results suggest OAS may play a role improving health outcomes and narrowing income-related health inequalities. Such findings may have important implications on older adults, other vulnerable populations, and future directions of Canadian health and public policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".