Life expectancy of First Nations, Métis and Inuit household populations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has called upon the federal government to provide data on a number of health indicators, including life expectancy among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit. In Canada, estimating the life expectancy of Indigenous populations is methodologically challenging since death registrations do not usually collect information on whether the deceased was Indigenous. For the first time in Canada, a series of census-mortality linked datasets has been created that can be used to estimate life expectancies among Indigenous household populations enumerated by a census. DATA AND METHODS: Life expectancy is the average number of years a person at a given age would be expected to live if the mortality rates observed for a specific period persisted into the future. For this study, abridged period life tables (based on five-year age groups) were calculated for self-reported First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-Indigenous males and females. RESULTS: Life expectancy was substantially and consistently shorter for First Nations, Métis and Inuit household populations compared with the non-Indigenous household population across all time periods. In 2011, life expectancy at age 1 for the male household population was 72.5 years for First Nations, 76.9 years for Métis, 70.0 years for Inuit and 81.4 years for non-Indigenous people. Among the female household population, life expectancy at age 1 was 77.7 years for First Nations, 82.3 years for Métis, 76.1 years for Inuit and 87.3 for non-Indigenous people. DISCUSSION: With the creation of a series of census-mortality linked datasets, it is now possible to produce national mortality and life expectancy estimates starting at age 1 for Indigenous household populations. The routine monitoring of longevity by population group can inform policy development and planning intended to advance health equity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".