MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057510700 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v71i0.18383

A decade of research in Inuit children, youth, and maternal health in Canada: areas of concentrations and scarcities

2012· review· en· W2057510700 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda J. Sheppard, Ross Hetherington

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPublic healthLife expectancyThematic analysisContext (archaeology)Environmental healthMEDLINEMedicineCircumpolar starPsychological interventionMental healthPopulationHealth equityGrey literatureHealth careGerontologyQualitative researchPolitical scienceGeographyNursingPsychiatrySocial scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuit Canadians are on average about 20 years younger and have a 10-year lower life expectancy than other Canadians. While there have been improvements in Inuit health status over time, significant health disparities still remain. This paper will review the peer-reviewed literature related to Inuit child, youth, and maternal health between 2000 and 2010, investigate which thematic areas were examined, and determine what proportion of the research is related to each group. Establishing areas of research concentrations and scarcities may help direct future research where it is needed. We followed a systematic literature review and employed peer-reviewed research literature on child, youth, and maternal health which were selected from 3 sources, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Circumpolar Health Bibliographic Database. The resulting references were read, and summarized according to population group and thematic area. The thematic areas that emerged by frequency were: infectious disease; environment/environmental exposures; nutrition; birth outcomes; tobacco; chronic disease; health care; policy, human resources; interventions/programming; social determinants of health; mental health and wellbeing; genetics; injury; and dental health. The 72 papers that met the inclusion criteria were not mutually exclusive with respect to group studied. Fifty-nine papers (82%) concerned child health, 24 papers (33%) youth health, and 58 papers (81%) maternal health. The review documented high incidences of illness and significant public health problems; however, in the context of these issues, opportunities to develop research that could directly enhance health outcomes are explored.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207