MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599791438 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.31.1.03

Mortality of urban Aboriginal adults in Canada, 1991–2001

2010· article· en· W1599791438 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M.K.G. Tjepkema, Ruth C. Wilkins, S. Senécal, É Guimond, C Penney

Bibliographic record

VenueChronic diseases in Canada · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev CanadaStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLife expectancyDemographyCensusEthnic groupPopulationMortality rateGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality patterns for urban Aboriginal adults with those of urban non-Aboriginal adults. METHODS: Using the 1991-2001 Canadian census mortality follow-up study, our study tracked mortality to December 31, 2001, among a 15% sample of adults, including 16 300 Aboriginal and 2 062 700 non-Aboriginal persons residing in urban areas on June 4, 1991. The Aboriginal population was defined by ethnic origin (ancestry), Registered Indian status and/or membership in an Indian band or First Nation, since the 1991 census did not collect information on Aboriginal identity. RESULTS: Compared to urban non-Aboriginal men and women, remaining life expectancy at age 25 years was 4.7 years and 6.5 years shorter for urban Aboriginal men and women, respectively. Mortality rate ratios for urban Aboriginal men and women were particularly elevated for alcohol-related deaths, motor vehicle accidents and infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS. For most causes of death, urban Aboriginal adults had higher mortality rates compared to other urban residents. Socio-economic status played an important role in explaining these disparities. CONCLUSION: Results from this study help fill a data gap on mortality information of urban Aboriginal people of Canada.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChronic diseases in CanadaSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207