Black Health in Canada: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Black Canadians experience poor health care, poor health outcomes, and a greater burden of health inequalities, much of which is rooted in the unequal distribution of social determinants of health. Despite Canada's emphasis on social inclusion, Canada's Black population faces substantial social inequities that affect their health and well-being. These disparities may specifically be attributed to racial discrimination, immigration status, precarious housing, underemployment, and increased poverty among Black Canadians. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review that aims to understand the range and nature of research conducted on the health of Black Canadians as well as the gaps in this literature. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework guided the conduct of the scoping review. We searched electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science) and grey literature sources for peer-reviewed articles and grey reports on the health of Black Canadians. Six reviewers independently screened the abstracts and full text of studies to determine eligibility for inclusion. According to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematics Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, the findings will be synthesized quantitatively and qualitatively through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Title, abstract, and full-text screening concluded in October 2022. Data collection is in progress and is expected to be completed by April 2023. Data analysis and drafting of the manuscript will be done thereafter. Findings from the scoping review are expected to be provided for peer review in 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This review will collect important data and evidence related to the health (mental, reproductive, and sexual; social determinants of health) of the Black population in Canada. The findings could help identify existing gaps in the health of Black individuals in Canada and inform future research paradigms. The findings will further inform the development of a knowledge hub on Black Canadians' health. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/42212.
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 | 0.125 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.136 | 0.024 |
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".