The Health of First Generation Caribbeans Across the Diaspora: Findings from 2000-2005 Population Data Surveys from Guyana, Jamaica, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scientific literature continues to recognize the changing health status of migrants residing in geographic destinations outside their homeland. However, very little research has compared the health of Caribbean residents within their homeland with those across various diasporic destinations. This five-country study examined the physical and mental health of Caribbeans within the region and those in host countries, and whether the length of time in host countries is associated with declining health. We analyzed population-based data collected in Jamaica (2005), Guyana (2005), Canada (2000/2001, 2003, and 2005), the United States (2001-2003), and England (1998-2000). Parallel descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression were used to assess the health status of first-generation Caribbeans. The study revealed that Caribbean people within the region generally maintained a higher degree of health advantage compared to Caribbean migrants in North America and England. Length of time was associated with physical and mental health problems within certain host countries. Sociodemographic factors contribute to health. The findings suggest that first-generation Caribbeans might initially lose certain health benefits in host countries, although we find trends for improved cardiovascular health over time in Canada. Further exploration of other influences on health among Caribbeans across the diaspora is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".