Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health status of Aboriginal women in Canada is disparagingly low as compared to the non-Aboriginal population. The implementation of male centred legislation, policies, and institutions that are the hallmark of Canada’s colonial history have had a long-lasting impact on the health of Aboriginal women. Although Aboriginal women have unique sets of constitutionally protected rights, the government has failed to protect these rights.The purpose of this article is to present a constitutional and human rights-based approach to address constitutionally protected rights within the context of a distinctive Indigenous appreciation of social rights and of women’s substantive equality. This article is separated into three sections. First, using data from federal government and the Native Women’s Association of Canada statistics, the health status of Aboriginal women is examined. Many international instruments and agreements recognize a rights-based approach to health. Canada, as a signatory to a number of these agreements, has acknowledged its international obligations towards the health of Aboriginal people. Two of these agreements, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, provide the human rights standards that bind Canada with regard to all Canadians and are examined in the second section. The last section suggests that a constitutional equality rights framework may offer a promising basis for future right to health assertions by Aboriginal women. Through an analysis of both collective and individual rights of Aboriginal women to health, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it becomes apparent that Canada is in breach of its constitutional obligations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".