Associations between Housing Factors and Respiratory Symptoms in Two Saskatchewan First Nations Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inadequate housing is commonplace in First Nations in Canada, often leading to environmental impacts on housing such as dampness and mold. First Nations communities suffer from a higher prevalence of respiratory-related health conditions than the general Canadian population. There is limited Canadian literature evaluating the relationship between housing factors and the respiratory health of adults within First Nations communities. This study was undertaken with two Saskatchewan First Nations communities. The study population consisted of 293 individuals within 131 households. The individuals completed questionnaires on their general and respiratory health, and one member of each household completed a household questionnaire. The collection of environmental samples from within the house was undertaken. The respiratory outcomes of interest focused on the individuals with ever wheeze, reported by 77.8% of the individuals, and shortness of breath, reported by 52.6% of the individuals. Body mass index, the nontraditional use of tobacco (i.e., current and ex-smoking), the nontraditional use of tobacco in the house (i.e., smoking in the house), dampness in the house in the last 12 months, and always having a smell of mold in the house were significantly associated with respiratory symptoms. The results reveal that respiratory symptom rates were high in the population and housing factors were significantly associated with respiratory symptoms. Addressing and redressing housing inadequacies in First Nations communities are important in preventing additional burdens to health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".