MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485025255 · doi:10.7202/044818ar

Mortalité par suicide dans les collectivités inuites au Canada : taux et effets des caractéristiques des collectivités

2010· article· fr· W1485025255 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christopher Penney, Sacha Senécal, Ellen Bobet

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGeographyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À défaut de pouvoir identifier spécifiquement les Inuit dans les statistiques de l’état civil à l’échelle du Canada, il est possible au moyen d’une approche géographique de produire une analyse démographique de la mortalité au sein des collectivités inuites du Canada. Nous avons ainsi estimé la mortalité par suicide dans les quatre régions du Canada où sont localisées les collectivités inuites, soit le Nunavut, le Nunavik (Nord du Québec), le Nunatsiavut (Labrador) et la région des Inuvialuit (Territoires du Nord-Ouest) pour les périodes 1989-1993, 1994-1998 et 1999-2003. L’analyse révèle des taux de suicide de 6 à 11 fois plus élevés dans l’ensemble des régions inuites, d’importantes variations des taux d’une région inuite à l’autre et une augmentation marquée des taux lors de la dernière période analysée. Les taux estimés de suicide ont été jumelés au recensement de la population du Canada de 2001 ainsi qu’à l’Enquête auprès des peuples autochtones de 2001 de Statistique Canada afin de cerner certains facteurs explicatifs.

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)0.004
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207