Separate but Equal? The History of Aboriginal Health Care Policy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health of aboriginal Canadians has long lagged behind that of the majority of the Canadian populace.Because of constitutional reasons, aboriginal health care has developed separately from the health care for other Canadians.It is worth looking at this separation and its historical development to learn if there are reasons for the disparity in health outcomes of Aboriginal Canadians.Aboriginal health care policy began with a complete absence of policy in the years after confederation.Early promises of minor medical services during treaty negotiations formed the underpinnings of aboriginal health care policy.Evolution of health care policy led to expansion from these humble beginnings until today when aboriginals, at least theoretically, enjoy more health care coverage than the rest of Canadians.A recent trend in aboriginal health care is their increasing self-provision of services.This historical overview reveals five themes that have governed aboriginal health.First, their separation, geographically and culturally, from the rest of Canadian society has hindered their enjoyment of health care services.Second, they have always been and have grown increasingly dependent on others for health care services.Third, research into aboriginal health care has been sorely lacking and makes improvement of their care difficult.Fourth, health care has been poorly linked to other aboriginal social services, and so a holistic approach to health care has been compromised.And fifth, there has been a lack of focus and political will by the federal government to improve the stock of aboriginal health.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".