Evaluating the relationship between income, survival and loss of autonomy among older Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the relationship between health at old age and income is key for the design of equitable public policies targeted toward the elderly. While the health economics literature studying the relationship between income and survival is abundant, the literature studying the relationship between income and the risks to become dependent is still quite scarce. Using 2016 Canadian survey data on adults aged between 50 and 70, we find that income and the (objective and subjective) probability to live to age 85 are positively related while income and the (objective and subjective) probability to suffer from ADL limitations are negatively related. We also find that while the objective probability to enter a nursing home is negatively correlated with income, the subjective probability is positively correlated with income. Our results call for important policy recommendations. Poorer individuals are those who are more likely to become dependent and as such, long-term care (LTC) public policies should primarily be targeted toward them. This would generate a double benefit: first, by reducing the expected cost of dependency for those who would have more difficulty to pay for LTC expenditures and second, by fostering redistribution and decreasing income inequalities across the elderly.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".