A vital statistics system for determining births and mortality in the First Nations population of British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a unique method for producing province-wide and selected regional birth and death statistics for the First Nations population, We identified births and deaths of persons with Indian Status in the province of British Columbia, Canada, using three databases: the Vital Statistics Agency's database of births and deaths, the Department of Indian Affairs' Indian Status Verification File and the provincial health insurance plan's Status Indian Entitlement file. A birth or death was considered Status Indian if the person was so identified in any of the three sources. From 1991 through 1998, 24,159 live births were identified as Status Indian: 54% by all three sources, 29% by two sources and 17% by one source. In the same period, 5,680 Status Indian deaths were identified: 28% by all three sources, 38% by two sources and 34% by one source. Deaths were grouped by Underlying Cause and rates in each category were age-standardized for comparison to the general population. This project underscores the importance of using more than one database to ensure complete counting. Otherwise, birth and death rates will be underestimated. This has implications for national reporting if each province does not have a comparable system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".