MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184068399 · doi:10.1525/elementa.2019.00079

Historical foundations and contemporary expressions of a right to health care in Circumpolar Indigenous contexts

2021· article· en· W3184068399 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josée G. Lavoie, Jon Petter Stoor, Elizabeth Rink, Katie Cueva, Елена Гладун, Christina Viskum Lytken Larsen, Gwen Healey Akearok, Nicole Kanayurak

Bibliographic record

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsQaujigiartiit Health Research CentreUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumpolar starIndigenousHealth carePolitical scienceEconomic growthContext (archaeology)Health policyDeclarationPublic administrationGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although numerous comparative Indigenous health policy analyses exist in the literature, to date, little attention has been paid to comparative analyses of Circumpolar health policy and the impact these policies may have on Indigenous peoples’ rights to health. In this article, we ground our discussion of Indigenous peoples’ right to access culturally appropriate and responsive health care within the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Under UNDRIP, signatory states are obligated to guarantee that Indigenous peoples have access to the same services accessible to all citizens without discrimination. Signatory states must also guarantee access to services that are grounded in Indigenous cultures, medicines, and practices and must address Indigenous peoples’ determinants of health at least to the same extent as their national counterparts. Our analysis finds that the implementation of this declaration varies across the Circumpolar north. The United States recognizes an obligation to provide health care for American Indian and Alaska Native people in exchange for the land that was taken from them. Other countries provide Indigenous citizens access to care in the same health care systems as other citizens. Intercultural models of care exist in Alaska and to some extent across the Canadian territories. However, aside from Sámi Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Mental Health and Substance Use in northern Norway, intercultural models are absent in Nordic countries and in Greenland. While Russia has not ratified UNDRIP, Russian policy guarantees access to health care to all citizens, although access is particularly limited in rural and remote environments, including the Russian Arctic. We conclude that Circumpolar nations should begin and/or expand commitments to culturally appropriate, self-determined, access to health care in Circumpolar contexts to reduce health inequities and adhere to obligations outlined in UNDRIP.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.051
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementa Science of the AnthropoceneSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207