MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091905696 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2020.11.3.10733

Modeling the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Communities: Some Considerations

2020· article· en· W3091905696 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Josée G. Lavoie, Razvan G. Romanescu, Alan Katz, Nathan Nickel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Indigenous2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)GeographyVirologyEcologyComputer scienceBiologyMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This article articulates the complexity of modeling in First Nations, Metis, and Inuit contexts by providing the results of a modeling exercise completed at the request of the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba. Methods: We developed a model using the impact of a previous pandemic (the 2009 H1N1) to generate estimates. Results: The lack of readily available data has resulted in a model that assumes homogeneity of communities in terms of health status, behaviour, and infrastructure limitations. While homogeneity may be a reasonable assumption for province-wide planning, First Nation communities and Tribal Councils require more precise information in order to plan effectively. Metis and urban Inuit communities, in contrast, have access to much less information, making the role of Indigenous organizations mandated to serve the needs of these populations that much more difficult. Conclusion: For many years, Indigenous organizations have advocated for the need to have access to current and precise data to meet their needs. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the importance of timely and accurate community-based data to support pandemic responses.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0150.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207