Housing inadequacy in rural Saskatchewan First Nation communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housing and house conditions on First Nation communities in Canada are important determinants of health for community members. Little is known about rural First Nation housing in the Canadian Prairies. The aim was to survey houses in two rural First Nation communities in Saskatchewan, Canada to understand housing conditions, prevalence of mold/mildew and dampness, and sources, locations and frequency of mold and dampness. Surveys were conducted with an adult member of each household in 144 houses. Surveys assessed: size, age, and number of rooms in the house; number of individuals residing in the house; presence of mold/mildew and dampness, and sources, locations and frequency of mold and dampness. Houses were mostly two-bedrooms (25.7%) or more (67.4%). Thirty-one percent of houses had six or more people living in the house with crowding present in 68.8% of houses. Almost half of the houses (44.5%) were in need of major repairs. More than half of the houses had water or dampness in the past 12 months in which dripping/puddles and standing water were most commonly identified and were from surface water and plumbing. More than half of the houses indicated that this dampness caused damage. A smell of mold or mildew was present in over half of the houses (52.1%) and 73.3% of these houses indicated that this smell was always present. Housing adequacy including crowding, dampness, and mold are significant issues for houses in these two rural Saskatchewan First Nation communities. Housing inadequacy is more common in these rural communities as compared to Canadian statistics. Housing inadequacy is modifiable and is important to address for multiple reasons, but notably, as a social determinant of health. Federal government strategy to address and redress housing in First Nation communities in Canada is a fiduciary responsibility and critical to reconciliation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".