Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new sample of 175,000 individuals is analyzed to assess the effect of socioeconomic status on mortality in the nineteenth century U.S. The sample consists of decedents from the mortality schedules and survivors from the population schedules of the 1850 and 1860 federal censuses. In 1850, for males age 20-44 in fifty rural counties, occupation was a poor predictor of all-cause mortality, though deaths from consumption (tuberculosis) were substantially more likely among craft and white collar workers than among farmers and unskilled laborers. For males and females of nearly all ages in eleven rural counties in Alabama and Illinois in 1850 and 1860, there was no clear relationship between family real estate wealth and mortality. There was, however, a large and statistically significant negative relationship between family personal wealth and mortality in 1860. For example, among both infants and adults age 20-44, those in families with no personal wealth were more than twice as likely to die in the year before the census as those in families with any personal wealth. Even when the U.S. was largely rural and agricultural, then, disparities in mortality by socioeconomic status of the sort observed in modern data were quite common.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.365 | 0.165 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".