MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294243181 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1939

Considerations and Consequences when using First Nations Identifiers in Administrative Data Research.

2022· article· en· W4294243181 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anita Durksen, Wanda Phillips-Beck, Joykrishna Sarkar, Farzana Quddus, Jennifer Enns, Mariette Chartier, Nathan Nickel, Marni Brownell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPopulationIdentifierGeneral partnershipGeographyUnique identifierCohortMedicineDemographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectivesLack of consistent and relevant Indigenous identifiers in Canadian data sources leads to misclassification and under-recognition of the health and social issues impacting Indigenous Peoples, further perpetuating the harms of colonization. We are evaluating and optimizing our approach for identifying First Nations (FN) individuals in administrative data in Manitoba. MethodsIn partnership between the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba and the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, we sought to evaluate to what extent four distinct Manitoba datasets derived from surveillance and social programs were able to identify FN individuals among a cohort of children in low-income Winnipeg neighbourhoods between 2005-2016. In choosing data sources to identify FNs, the population and research question were considered. We then compared the number of FNs identified in each dataset to the First Nations population research file, considered gold standard, but cognizant of its roots in colonial systems of registration. ResultsThe total cohort comprised N=78,864; among these, n=27,347 children were identified as FN in either the FN registry or at least one of the datasets. The FN registry was the most sensitive dataset and identified 85.7% of these individuals. The two program datasets identified 58.2% and 46.2%, and the surveillance-based datasets each identified less than 10%. The First Nations Registry is critical to accurately identify FN individuals. Our analyses demonstrated that without it we would miss 23.5% of those identified as FN in at least one other dataset. However, using it alone could potentially cause us to miss 15% of FN individuals identified in other datasets. The proportions of FN individuals that would be missed by excluding any of the other datasets were smaller (<6%). ConclusionWe found inconsistent FN identification across the datasets evaluated. Among the issues is that some datasets rely on self-identification. In Manitoba, no single administrative dataset can reliably and comprehensively identify FN individuals, and linking multiple datasets together is currently our best approach.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0220.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.677
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207