MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962332232 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/swh7r

Exploring the interplay between financial instability and health among people with disabilities in Canada

2025· other· en· W6962332232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)PovertyHealth carePopulationHome equityEconomic stabilityHealth equityAffect (linguistics)Financial stability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, 27% of Canadians aged 15 and older live with one or more disabilities that limit their daily activities (Statistics Canada, 2023). Among these individuals, 45% reported experiencing financial hardship during the pandemic, and Canada’s Material Deprivation Index reveals that approximately 53% of people with disabilities live in poverty (Mendelson et al., 2024; Statistics Canada, 2023). These alarming statistics stem from limited educational and labour market opportunities that disproportionately affect people with disabilities, undermining their financial stability (World Health Organization & The World Bank, 2011). Compounding these challenges, people with disabilities face additional costs associated with living with disabilities such as healthcare expanse, assistive devices, and transportation, which exacerbate financial strain on already limited resources (Mitra et al., 2017). Financial stability is widely recognized as a critical social determinant of health, yet for people with disabilities, the relationship between financial instability and health is uniquely complex and bidirectional. Financial hardship often results in poorer health outcomes due to restricted access to healthcare services, and the inability to afford necessary treatments or accommodations. Conversely, deteriorating health can reduce an individual’s capacity to work and manage expenses, thereby deepening financial instability (Banks et al., 2017; OECD, 2022). This cyclical interplay of financial instability and health highlights the interconnected challenges faced by people with disabilities and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive understanding of these dynamics to advance health equity for this population in Canada.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207