MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175917837 · doi:10.1177/08982643211014034

Consistent Honor, Persistent Disadvantage: American Indian and Alaska Native Veteran Health in the National Survey of Veterans

2021· article· en· W3175917837 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly R. Huyser, Sofia Locklear, Connor M. Sheehan, Brenda L. Moore, John Sibley Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsVeterans AffairsSocioeconomic statusGerontologyMedicineNational Health Interview SurveyPopulationLogistic regressionDisadvantagedDescriptive statisticsActivities of daily livingDemographyEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To examine self-rated health and activities of daily living (ADLs) limitations among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) veterans relative to white veterans. Methods: We use the 2010 National Survey of Veterans and limit the sample to veterans who identify as AI/AN or non-Hispanic white. We calculated descriptive statistics, confidence intervals, and used logistic regression. Results: AI/AN veterans are younger, have lower levels of income, and have higher levels of exposure to combat and environmental hazards compared to white veterans. We found that AI/AN veterans are significantly more likely to report fair/poor health controlling for socioeconomic status and experience an ADL controlling for age, health behaviors, socioeconomic status, and military factors. Discussion: The results indicate that AI/AN veterans are a disadvantaged population in terms of their health and disability compared to white veterans. AI/AN veterans may require additional support from family members and/or Veteran Affairs to address ADLs.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207