Canadian Indigenous engagement and capacity building in health impact assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consultations with concerned stakeholders are a cornerstone to effective impact assessment, not only within Canada, but internationally as well. The environment is of paramount importance to Indigenous communities, as many continue to rely heavily on the land and natural resources for their subsistence, including their socio-economic, cultural, spiritual and physical survival. Indigenous communities want reassurances from governments and industry that negative impacts associated with projects, programs or policies in their territories will be minimized and that positive impacts will be maximized. Communities want to be involved in the development, implementation and interpretation of the impact assessment report to assure themselves of the environmental, social, spiritual and health impacts associated with the exploitation of the local natural resources. This paper presents efforts by the Environmental Health Research Division of the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada, to assist Indigenous communities in carrying out community-based research to improve health and well-being by building and supporting their capacity to identify, understand and control impacts associated with projects, programs or policies implemented within their territories.
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 | 0.042 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".