5.2-O3The invisible nation: urban Métis peoples and access to culturally-safe health services in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In recognizing that health disparities among Indigenous peoples are rooted in subjugation, mistreatment and contemporary colonialism in Canada, this presentation will draw on my doctoral research that aims to address the urban Métis health services gap in the city of Toronto. Métis peoples comprise over a third of the Indigenous population in Canada, yet are noticeably absent in health assessment data and lack culturally-safe healthcare services. This is problematic given the data that is available indicates Métis peoples are overrepresented in disparities in health determinants and outcomes compared to the non-Indigenous Canadian population. Nested within a longitudinal cohort study aimed to develop a comprehensive health status and healthcare utilization database to profile urban Indigenous peoples’ health and wellbeing in Toronto, this presentation will look at: 1) the urban Métis context in Toronto; 2) the barriers towards urban Métis accessing culturally-safe healthcare services; and 3) steps forward to addressing the health inequities faced by urban Métis peoples. Methods: Through my own experience as an urban Métis woman living in the city of Toronto, I apply a decolonizing methodological lens to: 1) analyze quantitative data collected from the longitudinal cohort study, and 2) conduct a qualitative follow up with 13 urban Métis participants who participated in the longitudinal cohort study. Results: Ninety-seven urban Métis participants were interviewed in the longitudinal cohort study. Quantitative results will be disseminated, in addition to preliminary results from the qualitative follow up that will be in progress. Discussion: This research aims to improve urban Métis access to culturally-safe healthcare. Colonial categorizing of who gets what, along with decades of marginalization, has resulted in Métis peoples facing a multitude of barriers towards receiving and accessing culturally-safe healthcare. Community-lead initiatives are a fundamental step towards addressing health inequities faced by both indigenous peoples and vulnerable populations alike.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".