MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075860912 · doi:10.2466/pr0.97.3.739-749

Premature Mortality Due to Suicide, Homicide, and Motor Vehicle Accidents in Health Service Delivery Areas: Comparison of Status Indians in British Columbia, Canada, with All other Residents

2005· article· en· W2075860912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Stephen Bridges, Julie C. Kunselman

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideYears of potential life lostDemographyMedicineOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionPopulationGerontologyEnvironmental healthLife expectancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From each of 15 health regions, potential years of life lost (PYLL) before age 75 for Status Indians is compared for select causes of death with all other residents. Mortality data from 1991 to 2001 for rates of PYLL (standardized to the 1991 population) are from tables of the British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency and First Nations and Inuit Health Branch in 2002. PYLL rate differences and rate ratios were compared for two groups with significance of the former indicated by the 95% confidence interval. Overall, the rates of PYLL for suicide, homicide, and deaths due to motor vehicle accidents were about 224%, 340%, and 248% higher among Status Indians than all other residents. Rates of PYLL for homicide and deaths from motor vehicle accidents among Status Indian women exceeded those of other residents who were men. For suicide, Status Indian men ranked first and all other male residents of British Columbia ranked second.

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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207