Exploring Indigenous Concepts of Health: The Dimensions of Metis and Inuit Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wealth of research illustrates the inequitable burden of health and social disparities borne by Indigenous (1) Canadians as compared to non-Indigenous Canadians (2–6). Current patterns of health and social suffering reflect the combined effects of colonial oppression, systemic racism, and discrimination, as well as unequal access to human, social, and environmental resources (7–13). Because such sizable disparities exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, health conditions for the Indigenous population have generally been described in relation to those of the non-Indigenous population. It is arguable that these kinds of comparisons are irrelevant because Indigenous and non-Indigenous concepts of health are shaped by distinct world views and cultures of experience, which are undeniably different between the two populations. Rarely has attention been paid to the diversity of health concepts within the Indigenous population itself. Recently, there has been a call for research to explore health concepts from within Indigenous cultures (9, 13–14)while drawing upon health frameworks that integrate Indigenous perspectives that may be useful for Aboriginal health policy development (15–18). In response, we draw upon Canada’s 2001 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS) to address the following objectives: 1) to explore dimensions of health for Canada’s Inuit and Metis populations; and 2) to examine the stability of these dimensions across and within cultural and geographical contexts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".