MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112324903 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v9i4.674

Indigenous Peoples Experiences with Aging

2020· article· en· W3112324903 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sean Hillier, Hamza Al-Shammaa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIndigenousMetisGeographyEthnologyGenealogyGender studiesHistorySociologyAnthropologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous Peoples in Canada are a non-homogenous group consisting of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Peoples representing the original settlers of a given land or a geographical area (Parrott, 2018). Based on geographical location, there are unique names used to describe a given subset or group of Indigenous Peoples around the world. Despite their proximity, they originate from different nations, tribes, and communities and remain distinct in their spoken language, history, and way of life. Although there has been a notable growth in the literature on Indigenous Peoples, relatively little is published about their understanding of healthy aging. Similarly, there is a dearth of literature about the specific needs and wishes of Indigenous Peoples in Canada to facilitate a healthy aging process.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207