MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149936757 · doi:10.1017/s0021932001000670

ABORIGINAL MORTALITY IN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES AND NEW ZEALAND

2001· article· en· W2149936757 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frank Trovato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biosocial Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSocioeconomic statusDemographyPovertyEpidemiologyGeographyEthnic groupPrejudice (legal term)SociologyPopulationPolitical scienceMedicineAnthropologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous populations in New World nations share the common experience of culture contact with outsiders and a prolonged history of prejudice and discrimination. This historical reality continues to have profound effects on their well-being, as demonstrated by their relative disadvantages in socioeconomic status on the one hand, and in their delayed demographic and epidemiological transitions on the other. In this study one aspect of aboriginals' epidemiological situation is examined: their mortality experience between the early 1980s and early 1990s. The groups studied are the Canadian Indians, the American Indians and the New Zealand Maori (data for Australian Aboriginals could not be obtained). Cause-specific death rates of these three minority groups are compared with those of their respective non-indigenous populations using multivariate log-linear competing risks models. The empirical results are consistent with the proposition that the contemporary mortality conditions of these three minorities reflect, in varying degrees, problems associated with poverty, marginalization and social disorganization. Of the three minority groups, the Canadian Indians appear to suffer more from these types of conditions, and the Maori the least.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.337 · 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.

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

Citations47
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biosocial ScienceSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207