MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950161345 · doi:10.21083/surg.v11i0.5232

Prevalence of Psychological Disorders Among the Indigenous Population of Canada

2019· article· en· W2950161345 on OpenAlex
Brody Dechamplain

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousRespondentMental healthPopulationPsychologyDemographyPsychiatryClinical psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last several years, there has been an increase in interest in the history of Canada’s Indigenous peoples. This, in turn, has called attention to health-related topics such as the proportion of the Indigenous population which suffers from a psychological disorder. Using statistics drawn from Statistics Canada’s 2014 General Social Survey on Victimization, this study examines the percentage of respondents who report having a mental/psychological disorder and analyzes the percentage in terms of the heritage of the respondents. According to the findings, a larger proportion of Indigenous people reported having a psychological disorder than non-Indigenous people. The results, along with past literature, provide evidence which supports a statistically significant relationship between "Aboriginal group – Respondent" and "Mental/psychological disability status."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it