MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416297172 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v10i1.2984

Poverty and intellectual development in childhood

2025· article· en· W4416297172 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leslíe L. Roos, Gilles Detillieux, Gillian Fransoo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPovertyMental healthChild povertyIntellectual developmentEarly childhoodChild developmentIntellectual ability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Childhood exposure to and duration of poverty can affect several individual characteristics related to intellectual development. Objectives: This paper examines the implications of movement in and out of childhood poverty using a unique linkable database from the Canadian province of Manitoba. Differences in measurement of poverty and intellectual development are explored. Methods: Almost 90,000 children were followed using two definitions of poverty - neighborhood and household poverty. The large database permitted exploring the role of another variable - maternal mental health. Results: The association of household poverty with poorer intellectual outcomes has been shown to be stronger than the association of neighborhood poverty with such outcomes. This was true using various outcome measures appropriate across childhood (from age 5 to age 17). Comparisons with the role of maternal mental health were made and further analyses suggested. Conclusion: The richness of the data has facilitated the study of childhood intellectual development. Household poverty appears to play an important role; neighborhood poverty and maternal mental health also seem to influence such development, but less strongly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207