Improving cancer control in First Nations, Inuit and Métis Communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving cancer control in First Nations, Inuit and M etis Communities in CanadaThere are three distinct Indigenous populations in Canada: First Nations, Inuit and M etis, each with their own languages, histories, cultures and traditions.According to the 2011 Canadian Census, there are almost 900 000 people who self-identify as First Nations, living throughout Canada (Statistics Canada 2011) and just under 60 000 people who identify as Inuit, the majority of whom live in the far north of Canada.An estimated 452 000 self-identifying M etis people, of mixed European and First Nations ancestry, live predominately in western Canada and Ontario.The current complexities of cancer control among Indigenous peoples living in Canada can only be understood by looking back at the impact of the country's colonial history on health and well-being.Policies put in place during colonial times eroded Indigenous rights, ways of governing and Treaties, attempting to eliminate Indigenous peoples as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious and racial entities in Canada.These policies became the focus of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established to examine the residential school system, which was designed to forcibly assimilate First Nations, Inuit and M etis children by denigrating and suppressing their language and distinct cultures and traditions.After 6 years of hearings and testimony from more than 6000 residential school survivors and their families, the commission released a comprehensive report in December 2015 that detailed how, from the early 1800s to the late 1990s, at least 150 000 First Nations, Inuit and M etis children were removed from their families and communities.Many were exposed to harsh discipline and sexual, physical and emotional abuse.The 139 schools were often poorly heated and inadequately ventilated, offering a meagre diet of reduced quality.The schools, among other factors, created a deep sense of mistrust and betrayal, a sentiment that grew as land belonging to Indigenous peoples was forcibly seized and populations were resettled, often to land in remote, resource-poor areas.Treaties signed between early settlers and Indigenous peoples were often ignored or invalidated, leading to further mistrust.As well, traditional treatments practised for centuries were dismissed as ineffective and unsophisticated compared to Western medicine.The health impacts of colonial policies have been profound.High rates of infectious disease in the 1800s resulted in widespread population loss, weakening the capacity of communities to provide food, shelter and care to their members.Infectious disease gave way to chronic conditions, including cancer.Studies show that cancer incidence has risen dramatically in each of the First Nations, Inuit and M etis populations in the last few decades.(Marrett & Chaudry 2003;Friborg & Melbye 2008;Morrisseau 2008).From being nearly unknown a few generations ago, cancer is now among the top three causes of death among First Nations, Inuit and M etis people (Health Council of Canada 2005; Assembly of First Nations/First Nations Information Governance Committee 2007; Morrisseau 2008).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".