Urban Living is Not Associated with Better Birth and Infant Outcomes among Inuit and First Nations in Quebec~!2009-11-30~!2010-04-12~!2010-07-06~!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is limited and inconsistent evidence concerning rural versus urban differences in birth and infant outcomes for Indigenous peoples. We assessed birth and infant outcomes among Inuit, First Nations and French mother tongue groups by rural versus urban residence in Quebec, Canada. STUDY DEIGN: A retrospective birth cohort study of 5,184 First Nations, 2,527 Inuit and 652,940 French mother tongue (the majority reference) births in Quebec, 1991-2000. RESULTS: In general, rural living was associated with slightly less favorable birth outcomes for French mother tongue women, but somewhat better outcomes for Indigenous women. For both Inuit and First Nations, rural births were half as likely to be small-for-gestational-age compared to urban births. Among First Nations, the difference in infant mortality rates comparing urban to rural areas was not statistically significant. Compared to infants of French mother tongue women, Inuit and First Nations infants were much less likely to be small-for-gestational-age in rural areas, while such an "advantage" diminished for First Nations and reversed for Inuit in urban areas. The disparities in infant mortality among First Nations versus French mother tongue births were greater in urban than in rural areas. These patterns of results remained after adjusting for maternal characteristics. CONCLUSION: Living in urban areas was not associated with better birth and infant outcomes for Inuit and First Nations in Quebec despite universal health insurance coverage, strongly indicating a need for improved socioeconomic conditions, perinatal and infant care for Indigenous people living in urban areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".