Inclusivity matters: Perceptions of children's health and environmental risk including Old Order Mennonites from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of risk views in multiethnic Canadian society may be enhanced by including perceptions of a closed, ethno-religious Old Order Mennonite (OOM) community, farming along the most contaminated tributary of the Grand River, Ontario, Canada. This study represents the first time that these Old Order women have participated in any research. For this exploratory study, qualitative methods were the preferred approach. To understand environmental concerns of mothers living in the contaminated area, 34 semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers from mainstream society and from the OOM community. Emergent themes revealed concerns about exposure to toxicants, children's exposure reflected in their behaviour, and exposure differences determined by lifestyle. When links between perceptions of relationships between children's health and their polluted physical environments by mainstream society are contrasted with the perceptions of the OOMs, it becomes clear that each group defines risk to children's health differently. The inclusion of the OOMs in this study is important because it reveals essential information regarding ethnic vulnerability and a number of ethical dilemmas for the researchers assessing risk in marginalized communities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".