Colonial Extractions: Oral Health Care and Indigenous Peoples in Canada, 1945–79
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples in Canada currently experience much higher rates of oral health problems than their non-Indigenous counterparts. A number of recent reports have shown that Indigenous children have very high rates of tooth decay, that large numbers of Indigenous people report experiencing ongoing and persistent pain in their mouths, and that significantly more Indigenous people than non-Indigenous Canadians have no teeth at all. These oral health inequalities are important, not just because they have a profound impact on Indigenous Peoples’ quality of life but also because poor oral health is linked to other health issues that currently disproportionately impact Indigenous communities, including diabetes and heart disease. From 1945 to 1979, the federal government made only limited attempts to provide oral health care to Indigenous Peoples despite treaty promises of health care. The government did not believe that it had any obligation to provide oral health care, and as a result, the services provided were rushed, inadequate, inconsistent, and sometimes cruel. Indigenous Peoples experienced much higher levels of tooth extractions and lower rates of denture provision than was the case among non-Indigenous peoples in Canada, with ongoing consequences for their oral health today.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".