MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202308871 · doi:10.1111/jpc.15701

Australian First Nations response to the pandemic: A dramatic reversal of the ‘gap’

2021· article· en· W3202308871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona Stanley, Marcia Langton, James Ward, Daniel McAullay, Sandra Eades

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paediatrics and Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousMedicinePandemicPopulationRacismConstitutionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)LawEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until the recent death in Dubbo of an Aboriginal man, there have been no deaths from Covid 19 in Australia. The extraordinary success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations in controlling the effects of this pandemic has been a global role model. Until early 2021, in spite of their high risk status, dispersed population and fear of health services due to racism, Indigenous outcomes were better than those for non-Indigenous. Aboriginal health leaders at every level brought in worlds best practices and applied them in all urban, rural and remote locations. Instead of the many hundreds of cases, hospitalisation and deaths expected, there were only 150 cases nationwide with15% hospitalised but no one in ICU and no deaths. This result is a complete reversal of the gap and was due to the outstanding Indigenous leadership, that governments at all levels listened to Aboriginal wisdom and that control was handed to those who knew what to do. This result is not only evidence for why a Voice enshrined in the Constitution would work, it heralds a new way of working with Aboriginal people in Australia. This viewpoint makes the case for a different model to engage and empower First Nations to really close the gap - themselves.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Paediatrics and Child HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207