MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107745591

Unintentional injury hospitalizations and socio-economic status in areas with a high percentage of First Nations identity residents.

2014· article· en· W2107745591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Évelyne Bougie, Philippe Finès, Lisa Oliver, Dafna Kohen

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIdentity (music)DemographyPopulationInjury preventionGeographyPoison controlEnvironmental healthSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few national studies of hospitalizations due to injuries among the First Nations population have been conducted. DATA AND METHODS: Based on 2004/2005 to 2009/2010 data from the Discharge Abstract Database, this study examines associations between unintentional injury hospitalizations, socio-economic status and location relative to an urban core in Dissemination Areas (DAs) with a high percentage of First Nations identity residents versus a low percentage of Aboriginal identity residents. RESULTS: Unintentional injury hospitalization rates were higher in the less affluent and the most remote DAs. When DAs with the same socio-economic status and location were compared, the risk of hospitalizations was greater in high-percentage First Nations identity DAs relative to low-percentage Aboriginal identity DAs. INTERPRETATION: Socio-economic conditions and remote location accounted for some, but not all, of the differences in unintentional injury hospitalizations between high-percentage First Nations identity and low-percentage Aboriginal identity DAs. This suggests that characteristics not measured in this analysis--such as environmental, behavioural or other factors--play an additional role in DA-level unintentional injury hospitalization risk.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207