MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967655505 · doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1028-9

Gender variations in the relationship between social capital and mental health outcomes among the Indigenous populations of Canada

2019· article· en· W2967655505 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexander Ryan Levesque, Amélie Quesnel‐Vallée

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Equity in Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIndigenousMental healthOperationalizationSocial capitalDemographyPublic healthSocioeconomic statusSocial policyGeographySocioeconomicsPopulationPsychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical sciencePsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In this paper we examine the relationship between social capital and two mental health outcomes-self-rated mental health (SRMH) and heavy episodic drinking (HED)-among the Indigenous populations of Canada. We operationalize a unique definition of social capital from Indigenous specific sources that allows for an analysis of the importance of access to Indigenous networks and communities. We also examine gender variations in the relationship between social capital and the two outcomes, as there is a noticeable lack of research examining the influence of gender in the recent literature on the mental health of Indigenous populations in Canada. METHODS: Using data from the 2012 cycle of the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, logistic regression models were estimated to assess if gender was a significant predictor of either SRMH or HED among the entire Indigenous sample. The sample was then stratified by gender and the relationship between two social capital variables-one general and one indigenous-specific-and each mental health outcome was assessed separately among male and female respondents. All analyses were also further stratified into specific Indigenous groups-First Nations, Métis, or Inuit-to account for the unique cultures, histories, and socioeconomic positions of the three populations. RESULTS: Female respondents were more likely to report fair or poor SRMH in the total sample as well as the First Nations and Métis subsamples (OR = 1.48, CI = 1.14-1.91; OR = 1.63, CI = 1.12-2.36; OR = 1.44, CI = 1.01-2.05 respectively). However, female respondents were less likely than males to engage in weekly HED in all three of the same populations (OR = 0.43, CI = 0.35-0.54, all respondents; OR = 0.42, CI = 0.31-0.58, First nations; OR = 0.39, CI = 0.27-0.56, Métis). Social capital from sources specific to Indigenous communities was associated with lower odds of weekly HED, but only among Indigenous men. Meanwhile the strength of family ties was associated with lower odds of reporting fair/poor SRMH among both Indigenous men and women. However, these results vary in strength and significance among the different Indigenous populations of Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this paper address a critical gap in the literature on gender differences in SRMH and HED among the Indigenous populations of Canada, and reveal gendered variations in the relationship between social capital and SRMH and HED. These findings support further investigation into the role that social capital and particularly Indigenous-specific forms of social capital may play as a determinant of health. This research could contribute to future mental health initiatives aimed at strengthening the social capital of Indigenous populations and promoting resilient Indigenous communities with strong social connections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Equity in HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207