Birth outcomes and infant mortality among First Nations Inuit, and non-Indigenous women by northern versus southern residence, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In circumpolar countries such as Canada, northern regions represent a unique geographical entity climatically, socioeconomically and environmentally. There is a lack of comparative data on birth outcomes among Indigenous and non-Indigenous subpopulations within northern regions and compared with southern regions. METHODS: A cohort study of all births by maternal mother tongue to residents of northern (2616 First Nations (North American Indians), 2388 Inuit and 5006 non-Indigenous) and southern (2563 First Nations, 810,643 non-Indigenous) Quebec, 1991-2000. RESULTS: Compared with births to southern non-Indigenous mother tongue women, births to northern women of all three mother tongue groups were at substantially elevated risks of infant death (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.7-2.9), especially postneonatal death (aOR 2.2-4.4) after controlling for maternal education, age, marital status and parity. The risk elevation in perinatal death was greater for southern First Nations (aOR 1.6) than for northern First Nations (aOR 1.2). Infant macrosomia was highly prevalent among First Nations in Quebec, especially in the north (31% vs 24% in the south). Within northern regions, Inuit births were at highest risk of preterm delivery (aOR 1.4) and infant death (aOR 1.6). CONCLUSION: All northern infants (First Nations, Inuit or non-Indigenous) were at substantially elevated risk of infant death in Quebec, despite a universal health insurance system. Southern First Nations newborns have not benefited from the more advanced perinatal care facilities in southern regions. Environmental influences may partly account for the very high prevalence of macrosomia among First Nations in northern Quebec.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".