Housing & Income as Social Determinants of Women’s Health in Canadian Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health policy is increasingly conceptualized as concerned with broader issues that influence health rather than simply focused on health care. One such concern is with the social determinants of health which are the conditions in which people live and work. Social determinants provide the context for understanding population health and women’s health in particular. Especially important to health are the social determinants of income and housing. This article examines how income and housing policies interact with gender to influence these social determinants of Canadian women’s health. It compares income and housing data for unattached men and women of working age (18 to 64 years), couples with children, and female and male lone-parents in the Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs). The study found that although the incomes of female lone-parents increased slightly in Montreal and Toronto, female lone-parents and unattached females without children continue to show higher rates of poverty than other groups. Female lone-parents are the most socially and economically disadvantaged. Women’s lower incomes provide the context in which health-related effects of housing and income policies can be understood.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".