MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099991053

MORTALITY, MORBIDITY, AND THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE ELDERLY POPULATION

2015· article· en· W7099991053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyMortality ratePopulationPopulation ageingDeveloped countryFertilityAge groupsTotal fertility rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the 20th century, Canada as well as other developed countries experienced a tremendous transformation of their age structure, due to reduced fertility and mortality rates and changing causes of death. The first part of the century was characterized by the regression of mortality by infectious diseases, which helped nearly every child survive into adulthood, whereas the decades leading into the 21st century saw great improvements in mortality by cardiovascular diseases, which mainly profited older age groups. This greater survival at all ages helped raise Canadians ’ life expectancy from 56 to 77 years for men and from 58 to 82 years for women, between 1921 and 2000 (CHMD, 2005). Although the rate at which mortality declines has slowed down compared with the earlier part of the 20th century, life expectancy has never stopped increasing. This decline of mortality has lead to a significant increase of individuals surviving to age 65, as well as to age 80 and up. Along with the decrease in fertility, the decline in mortality contributes to the aging of the Canadian population: people aged 65 and over currently make up 13 percent of the country’s population compared with 8 percent in 1971. In addition, an aging process is developing within older age groups: the importance of the 80+ age group among the 65+ has increased

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 topicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae StudiesFrench-language works237,207