MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Manitoba Inuit Association’s Rapid Response to Include an Inuit Identifier within Manitoba COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests

2020· article· en· W3177702935 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wayne Clark, Josée G. Lavoie, Nathan Nickel, Rachel Dutton

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Indian Culture and Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisIndigenousContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Health carePolitical scienceGeographyPublic administrationEconomic growthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To monitor the progress of the COVID-19 outbreak, ensure equitable access to testing and treatment, and provide up-to-date information to Indigenous decision-makers engaged in setting up measures to protect their communities, the Manitoba Inuit Association (MIA) mobilized to work with the First Nation Heath and Social Secretariat of Manitoba, Ongomiizwin Research, and the Manitoba Government to identify Inuit in COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including Inuit who reside in Manitoba or those who come from Nunavut to the province to access health services. Provincial work was already underway to add Indigenous identifiers into provincial clinical health information systems; however, it was apparent early in April 2020 that reporting to Indigenous organizations on identified COVID-19 cases for First Nation, Metis, and Inuit People would be also be required in order for remedial measures to occur. This article describes the governance considerations needed to establish an information-sharing agreement with the Government of Manitoba and the role of the MIA in overseeing this process. Further background information is provided in addition to an extended discussion around the context in which Inuit are identified and receive healthcare services in Manitoba.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Indian Culture and Research JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207