MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029756155 · doi:10.1080/13557850050007347

The Impact of Diabetes Mellitus Among the Métis of Western Canada

2000· article· en· W2029756155 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnicity and Health · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusMedicineGerontologyPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Environmental healthDemographyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of diabetes mellitus on the lives of the Métis of western Canada, and to determine the extent of co-morbidity among Métis with diabetes. DESIGN: The source of data was the Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS), conducted by Statistics Canada in 1991. The survey was administered to a representative sample of Aboriginal peoples throughout Canada. Analysis was completed on self-identified Métis participants from the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. RESULTS: Métis participants with diabetes were more likely than those without diabetes to report their health status as poor. Significantly greater numbers of Métis with diabetes reported activity limitations at work, at home and in leisure activities, the need for assistance with activities of daily living and difficulties with ambulation than did those without diabetes. The extent of co-morbidity was also significant. Métis with diabetes were almost three times more likely to report hypertension and heart problems and twice as likely to report sight impairments than were those without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This research represents the first account of the effects of diabetes on the lives of the Métis. The APS data have provided a clear picture of the impairments in physical functioning experienced by the Métis with diabetes and the impact upon quality of life. In addition, the strong associations between diabetes and hypertension, heart problems and sight impairments suggest profound morbidity in this population that warrants prompt attention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnicity and HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207