Relationships to land as a determinant of wellness for Indigenous women, two-spirit, trans, and gender diverse people of reproductive age in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disparities in Indigenous reproductive health reflect Canada's historic and ongoing colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples, which includes persistent inequities in health and social services. Reproductive justice scholars and activists advocate for intersectional approaches to enhancing Indigenous health equity that recognize land as a central determinant of wellness. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between relationships to land and wellness in a study of urban Indigenous women, two-spirit, trans, and gender diverse people of reproductive age in Canada's largest city, Toronto. METHODS: Data were obtained from the cross-sectional Our Health Counts (OHC) Toronto study, which employed respondent-driven sampling methods (n = 323) and a community-directed comprehensive health assessment survey. In an exploratory analysis, we took an Indigenous reproductive justice theoretical approach to multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, there was a statistically significant positive association between relationships to the land and wellness that was estimated with good precision (OR 3.7, 95% CI 2.5-5.3). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that among urban Indigenous women, two-spirit, trans, and gender diverse people of reproductive age there is a positive association between feeling strong in their relationships to land and feeling balanced in the four domains of health (physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional). The community-based, community-directed design of OHC Toronto was congruent with a reproductive justice approach to research. Reproductive justice theories are adaptable to quantitative research on Indigenous reproductive health and can yield novel insights for supporting Indigenous wellness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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".