Risk indicators for depressed mood in youth: Limited association with Aboriginal cultural status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There have been too few studies on urban Aboriginal youth to permit inferences about depressed mood in this subgroup. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether Aboriginal cultural status is independently associated with moderate or severe depressed mood in youth after controlling for other covariates, including socioeconomic status. METHODS: Every student between grades 5 and 8 in the city of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, was asked to complete a questionnaire in February of 2007. Depressed mood was measured with a 12-question depression scale derivative of the 20-question Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. RESULTS: Four thousand ninety-three youth participated in the school health survey. For Aboriginal youth, the prevalence rate of moderate or severe depressed mood was 21.6% in comparison with 8.9% for Caucasian youth (rate ratio 2.43; 95% CI 1.92 to 3.08). Aboriginal cultural status was not associated with depressed mood after adjustment for other covariates in the final multivariate model (OR 1.132; 95% CI 0.682 to 1.881). Parental educational status and sex were confounders to the association between Aboriginal cultural status and depressed mood. CONCLUSIONS: The recognition that Aboriginal cultural status is not independently associated with moderate or severe depressed mood in youth after full multivariate adjustment allows policy makers to acknowledge that mental health disparity prevention is possible because the determinants of health (ie, education) are modifiable (in comparison with Aboriginal cultural status).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".