Stillbirth and infant mortality in Aboriginal communities in Quebec.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infant mortality and stillbirth rates among Aboriginal people are higher than in the rest of Canada, but little is known on the perinatal health status of First Nations people living on reserves. This study examines stillbirth and infant mortality rates among Aboriginal people in Quebec, notably, First Nations people living on reserves, and compares these rates with those of the province's non-Aboriginal population. DATA AND METHODS: Data on live births and stillbirths in Quebec from 1989 to 2008 were extracted from Statistics Canada's Infant Birth-Death Linked File. Postal codes were used to identify births and stillbirths on First Nations reserves, in the Cree and Naskapi communities (not on reserves), and in Inuit communities. Associations between type of community and mortality were measured using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Aboriginal people had a higher stillbirth rate than non-Aboriginal people in Quebec, but this difference was not significant after adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics (mothers' age and education, community size and isolation). Neonatal mortality was also higher among the Inuit. Post-neonatal mortality was higher among Aboriginal people, and was unrelated to differences in the mothers' age and education or to community size and isolation. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for post-neonatal mortality on reserves, in the Cree and Naskapi communities, and in Inuit communities were, respectively, 1.57 (1.16 - 2.12), 3.01 (2.14 - 4.24) and 4.29 (3.09 - 5.97). INTERPRETATION: Stillbirth and infant mortality are higher among Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal people in Quebec. The differences in post-neonatal mortality are particularly pronounced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".