Disability and Suicidal Ideation among Indigenous Adults in Canada: Cultural Resources as Contingencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study asks: Is disability associated with suicidal ideation among Indigenous adults in Canada? And if so, do cultural resources-as measured by cultural identity affect, cultural group belonging, cultural engagement, and cultural exploration-modify this association? METHODS: = 16,125). A series of weighted logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: Indigenous adults with disabilities were significantly more likely than those without disabilities to report suicidal ideation, even after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and physical and mental health conditions. At the same time, people with multiple disabilities were at greater risk for suicidal ideation, with the largest association among those with five or more disabilities. Furthermore, the detrimental association between disability status and suicidal ideation attenuated among those who reported cultural group belonging. In a similar vein, the buffering role of cultural group belonging was also observed in the association between the number of disabilities and suicidal ideation. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides compelling evidence that disability is a risk factor for suicidal ideation among Indigenous adults and that cultural group belonging plays a stress-buffering role in this relationship.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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".