Indigenous Autism in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently there is a severe lack of research on autism and Indigenous people in Canada. This scoping review explores this literature gap and assesses the same literature from an Indigenous perspective. Scoping reviews are an effective means to explore the literature in a specific area, in this case, autism and Indigenous people in Canada. We explored existing literature as it pertains to Indigenous populations and autism in Canada. To support this review, the Indigenous Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) was adapted to appraise the quality of literature. In total, there were a total of 212 articles identified of which 24 met the inclusion criteria: (1) some focus on autism, (2) a component specific to Indigenous people, and (3) specific to Canada. Of the 24 articles and reports, 15 were peer-reviewed and the rest considered grey literature. Most articles focused on program delivery with some literature using primary data (quantitative and/or qualitative). Overall, the quality of the research was appraised as poor, as determined by the QAT. Findings reaffirm the critical need for research that addresses autism in Indigenous communities within Canada and show the importance of having research done in full partnership with, or led by, Indigenous people.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".