MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W97931243

Measuring Progress in Health through Deprivation Indexes

2011· article· en· W97931243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angela Testi, Enrico Ivaldi

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancySocioeconomic statusInequalityIndex (typography)CensusHealth equityHealth indicatorEnvironmental healthDemographyPublic healthMedicinePopulationMathematicsSociologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress in health is usually measured by means of indicators of health status such as premature mortality ratio or life expectancy. There is evidence that in more developed countries, despite general health improvement, inequalities in health among individuals are worsening. Most of these inequalities, however, could be avoided because they are due to socioeconomic conditions, depending on the relation between socioeconomic conditions and health largely proved in literature. The main conclusion is that measuring progress in health should not be limited to health status, but should also consider health inequalities. The suggested method to quantify them is to follow the deprivation index approach. The analysis is applied to a case study where the comparison between health statuses of two Census periods is completed by estimating also the variability in health inequalities, proxied by the gradients in Standard Mortality Ratios [SMRs] among small areas with different socioeconomic conditions. The latter are quantified by an index of material deprivation previously developed based on 1991 and 2001 Census data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207