MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1831748925 · doi:10.18357/ijih91201212391

Assessment of Tuberculosis Outbreak Definitions for a First Nations On-Reserve Context

2013· article· en· W1831748925 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hasina Samji, Dennis Wardman, Pamela Orr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Indigenous Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First NationsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreambleOutbreakTuberculosisContext (archaeology)PopulationHealth careMedicineGeographyEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPathologyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving the prevention and control of tuberculosis (TB) in Aboriginal communities in Canada is a matter of great urgency. Canadian-born Aboriginal people account for 21% of TB cases in the country even though they represent only 3.8% of the overall population. Moreover, age standardized rates of TB in Aboriginal people reveal an incidence almost six fold greater than the national rate. There are unique challenges in the prevention and control of TB in First Nations populations. We sought to investigate whether the Canadian Tuberculosis Standards definition being used Canada wide to address TB is appropriate in a First Nations on-reserve context or whether alternate definitions should be considered. In this study, we spoke to health care workers, scientists, and administrators involved in TB programs and care across the country to assess the suitability of the definition used to classify an outbreak. Our data showed that the majority of study participants did not support a First Nations-specific TB outbreak definition. Participants felt that a response protocol would be useful, along with a preamble to the definition detailing unique circumstances that may pertain to an outbreak on-reserve.

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)0.001
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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Indigenous HealthSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207