MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482888163 · doi:10.1177/117718011200800308

An Analysis of the Evacuation Policy for Pregnant First Nations Women in Canada

2012· article· en· W1482888163 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Lawford, Audrey R. Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth policyMaternal healthEconomic growthPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsHealth servicesHealth careMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Canadian policy requires the routine evacuation of pregnant First Nations women who live on-reserve in rural and remote regions to larger centres to gain access to perinatal services. Despite this access, First Nations women's health remains poor and the First Nations infant mortality rate remains high. In this paper, we employ First Nations feminist theory to understand why the evacuation policy does not result in good health, especially for First Nations women. Four themes emerge: decolonization, self-determination, land, and community. Based on these results, we argue that First Nations’ concepts of health are largely incongruent with the Euro-Canadian bio-medical model, a model that is foundational to the evacuation policy. Until health policies incorporate and are congruent with First Nations’ epistemologies and related health practices, their health will continue to suffer. Policy recommendations are offered to promote First Nations health in a way that is consistent with First Nations’ epistemologies.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.341
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207