Injury among the aboriginal population of Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are three distinct Aboriginal grouping in Canada: First Nations, Inuit and Métis. There has been little research on the health status of Métis people in Canada. This is particularly true of the Métis inhabitants of Alberta. Aim This study aimed to examine the health burden due to injuries that the Métis of Alberta experience and compare this to the burden experienced by the First Nations, Inuit and the non-Aboriginal population of the province. Methods Comparisons were made for the rate of injuries in physician claims, emergency department presentations and inpatient hospitalisations for the year 2009. Results Injury rates were significantly elevated for the Métis when compared to the non-Aboriginal population for virtually all comparisons made. However when compared to the First Nations population, the Métis experience significantly lower rates of injury. These relationships were particularly strong for intentional injury where First Nations people were eight times more likely to have been hospitalised that non-Aboriginals compared to 1.7 times for Métis. Significance The vast majority of the comparisons for sub-types of injury within the various settings illustrated that the injury burden of Métis is higher than the non-Aboriginals but lower than the burden experienced by the First Nations. The injury experience in Canada's Aboriginal populations continues to be a major concern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".