MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164183913 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2021.12.2.10820

Mental Health Interventions for First Nation, Inuit, and Métis Peoples in Canada: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3164183913 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Simon Graham, Krista Stelkia, Cornelia Wieman, E. D. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersDepartment of Education and TrainingMedical Research CouncilAustralian Government
KeywordsPsychological interventionIndigenousPsycINFOMental healthAnxietyCeremonyMEDLINESuicide preventionPoison controlEnvironmental healthMedicineGeographyGerontologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Higher rates of anxiety, depression, and attempted suicide are reported among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people compared with non-Indigenous people in Canada. This systematic review summarises the key components of mental health interventions among Indigenous Peoples in Canada. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science between January 1,1970, and August 30, 2019. Studies needed to be an intervention addressing suicide, depression, or anxiety. There were 14 studies: 8 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 4 mixed methods. By geographical location, 5 were urban, 5 non-urban, and 4 included multiple areas. Beneficial interventions included ceremony, being on the land, engaging in traditional food gathering, culturally grounded indoor and outdoor activities, and the sharing of Indigenous knowledge by Elders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207