Life Satisfaction among Aboriginal Peoples in the Canadian Prairies: Evidence from the Equality, Security and Community Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective measures of overall quality of life are built in to numerous surveys in Canada and around the world, and are increasingly analyzed and used as indicators of human well-being and social progress. Yet, even in Canada, federal surveys exclude Aboriginal peoples on-reserve and, in general, there are very few data sources on life satisfaction among Aboriginal respondents. We report on two exceptional surveys that do solicit life satisfaction assessments from Aboriginal respondents, and compare inferences from these data to the general Canadian population. We generally find comparable effects of objective life circumstances for the two groups, and use these to explain some of the advantages and disadvantages affecting life satisfaction in each sample. On the other hand, we find an unusual coefficient on the survey income measure for on-reserve Aboriginal respondents, likely indicating that total income is not appropriately measured by the standard income question. We propose that policy interest in life satisfaction measures for gauging effective avenues for improving lives is appropriate in the case of Aboriginal groups in Canada, just as for other populations in Canada and around the world.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".