MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156711552 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2010.21982

Aboriginal Child Health and the Social Determinants: Why Are These Children So Disadvantaged?

2010· article· en· W2156711552 on OpenAlexaffabout
B Postl, Catherine L Cook, Michael Moffatt

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedBest practiceChild healthMedicinePovertySocial determinants of healthFamily medicinePsychologyNursingEnvironmental healthPublic healthEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's original people consist of First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples. Their estimated population is 1.17 million. The total fertility rate for the period 1996-2001 was 2.6 for Aboriginal women versus 1.5 for Canada (Statistics Canada 2006). Thus, a high proportion of this rapidly growing segment of the population are children. Numerous articles have reviewed the health status of Canada's Aboriginal children and shown comparatively high prevalence and incidence of most of the common diseases that affect children. This article highlights some of the more specific disparities, but also attempts to provide some historical context and a few composite case studies that illustrate how the social determinants, colonialism, jurisdictional issues, geography and healthcare can interact to amplify disproportionately the disadvantage these children have in so many ways. Much of the historical detail recounts the contact with First Nations people, the most numerous and the first group to have contact with European settlement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.423 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207