MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402689057 · doi:10.29173/topo56

The Intrinsic Concatenation of Economic Growth and Life Expectancy

2024· article· en· W4402689057 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rylee Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueTopophilia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcatenation (mathematics)Life expectancyExpectancy theoryPsychologyEconomicsSociologyDemographySocial psychologyMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper delves into the intrinsic connection between economic growth and life expectancy, illustrating how periods of GDP expansion contribute significantly to global and national increases in average life spans. Over the past two centuries, global life expectancy has experienced a remarkable surge, rising from an average of around 30 years to over 70 years in contemporary times, a trend closely aligned with historical phases of economic growth. Beginning with the industrial revolutions of the mid-19th century and extending to the Digital Revolution of the 20th century, economic prosperity has played a pivotal role in driving improvements in health outcomes. Investments in healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social welfare programs have been facilitated by sustained GDP growth, resulting in enhanced life expectancy and well-being for populations worldwide. Through empirical data and historical analysis, this study underscores the critical nexus between economic policies, technological advancements, and public health initiatives in shaping population longevity. The findings highlight the importance of continued economic development and strategic investments in addressing global health challenges and improving life expectancy across diverse socio-economic contexts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopophiliaSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207