Comparing indigenous mortality across urban, rural and very remote areas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It remains unclear how indigenous mortality varies between residential areas. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on mortality patterns in urban, rural and very remote areas for the adult and infant indigenous populations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. Methods: A literature search was performed using major online electronic publication repositories. Studies presenting indigenous mortality or disease incidence/prevalence in urban, rural or very remote areas were included. Indigenous mortality and disease incidence/prevalence in both urban and very remote areas were compared with those in rural areas. Studies that reported number of deaths or disease incidences along with population were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-one studies were included with data from Australia (n=19), Canada (n=3), New Zealand (n=1) and the USA (n=8). Indigenous adult all-cause mortality, cervical cancer mortality, trauma mortality and incidence of myocardial infarction were all significantly lower in urban areas compared with rural areas. Likewise, indigenous adult cardiovascular mortality and renal disease mortality were significantly lower in very remote areas compared with rural areas, while indigenous infant all-cause mortality showed no significant difference in urban, rural or very remote areas. Conclusions: Urban areas consistently experienced lower adult indigenous mortality compared with rural areas, as did some very remote areas. Indigenous infants, however, experience similar mortality rates across all residential areas.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it