Examining structural factors influencing cancer care experienced by Inuit in Canada: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inuit face worse cancer survival rates and outcomes than the general Canadian population. Persistent health disparities cannot be understood without examining the structural factors that create inequities and continue to impact the health and well-being of Inuit. This scoping review aims to synthesise the available published and grey literature on the structural factors that influence cancer care experienced by Inuit in Canada. Guided by Inuit input from Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada as well as the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, a comprehensive electronic search along with hand-searching of grey literature and relevant journals was conducted. A total of 30 papers were included for analysis and assessment of relevance. Findings were organised into five categories as defined in the a priori framework related to colonisation, as well as health systems, social, economic, and political structures. The study results highlight interconnections between racism and colonialism, the lack of health service information on urban Inuit, as well as the need for system-wide efforts to address the structural barriers in cancer care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".