Province-Level Income Inequality and Health Outcomes in Canadian Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the effects of provincial income inequality (disparity between rich and poor), independent of provincial income and family socioeconomic status, on multiple adolescent health outcomes. Methods Participants (aged 12–17 years; N 11,899) were from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Parental education, household income, province income inequal-ity, and province mean income were measured. Health outcomes were measured across a number of do-mains, including self-rated health, mental health, health behaviors, substance use behaviors, and physical health. Results Income inequality was associated with injuries, general physical symptoms, and limiting conditions, but not associated with most adolescent health outcomes and behaviors. Income inequality had a moderating effect on family socioeconomic status for limiting conditions, hyperactivity/inattention, and con-duct problems, but not for other outcomes. Conclusions Province-level income inequality was associated with some physical and mental health outcomes in adolescents, which has research and policy implications for this age-group. Key words adolescents; disparities; health behavior; mental health; public health. Countries with greater disparity between the rich and the poor—or greater income inequality—have been shown to
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".