MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149324501 · doi:10.3138/chr.91.3.407

Care for the ‘Racially Careless’: Indian Hospitals in the Canadian West, 1920–1950s

2010· article· en· W2149324501 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Maureen Lux

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for the Economy
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Prejudice (legal term)WelfareHealth carePolitical sciencePublic administrationEconomic growthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1930s, sanatorium directors and medical bureaucrats warned of the threat to Canadian society of "Indian tuberculosis." Long-standing government policy aimed to isolate Aboriginal people on reserves and in residential schools, while their access to medical care was limited by government parsimony and community prejudice. Characterized as "racially careless" concerning their own health, Aboriginal bodies were seen as a menace to their neighbours and a danger to the nation. By the 1940s state-run racially segregated Indian hospitals institutionalized Aboriginal people who were not welcome in provincial sanatoria or in the modernizing community hospitals. The opening of the Charles Camsell Indian Hospital in Edmonton in 1946, one of the first acts of the newly created department of National Health and Welfare, was a very public demonstration of the state's commitment to define and promote "national health" by isolating and institutionalizing Aboriginal people.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0180.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207