MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097890788

Why Increasing Poverty and Low Income Threatens Canadians ’ Health and Health Care System When Social Policy is

2015· article· en· W7097890788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyHealth careSocial policyPublic healthHealth policyWelfareSocial determinants of health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health Policy Concerns about increasing numbers of Canadians living in poverty and on low incomes have primarily been raised by the social development and social welfare sectors (Yalnizyan, 1998). The health-related consequences of these increases are profound yet the public health and health care communities have been strangely silent concerning these issues (Raphael, 2000a). This is surprising as accumulating evidence indicates that poverty and low income have significant effects upon the health of populations (Raphael, 2001b). The current policy environment in Canada is one where increases in numbers of Canadians living in poverty and on low incomes are not seen by policy makers as particularly problematic. Yet such increases clearly threaten the health of Canadians and the sustainability of the Canadian health care system. In an earlier paper in CRSP, an overview of health-related effects of income inequality—including increasing poverty and low income—was presented (Raphael, 1999). Here, the health-related threats posed to Canadians by increasing levels of poverty and low income are illustrated through the specific example of cardiovas-cular disease in Canada (Raphael, 2001c). Mechanisms by which poverty and low income contribute to the incidence of cardiovascular disease are outlined. The social and health policy implications of having increasing numbers of Canadians living in poverty and on low incomes are considered with a focus on the sustainability of the public health care system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→