COMMENTARY Good Health to All: Reducing Health Inequalities among Children in High- and Low-Income Canadian Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue... For child-targeted programs to have a substantial impact on health outcomes, income-related policies, such as cash transfers, should receive less emphasis and in-kind transfers, of goods and services directed to children, should receive more. NO. 288, MAY 2009 SOCIAL POLICY In recent years, the health and well being of Canadian children in low-income families has been identified as a policy priority, but policymakers need to have a clear understanding of the available tools to improve their health outcomes. This Commentary examines the relationship between household income and children’s health, and finds that the health and education of parents play an even more significant role than household income in determining children’s health status. Moreover, since very large transfers of income to relatively poor households would be needed to have a substantial impact on children’s health outcomes, such income-
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".