Métis health in Canada: a scoping review of Métis-specific health literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Métis are a culturally unique and distinct population, yet little research has evaluated their health separate from the broader Indigenous population. We sought to explore current literature regarding the health of Métis Peoples in Canada and identify potential trends and gaps. METHODS: Using the Arksey-O'Malley, 5-stage, scoping review method, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE, iPortal Indigenous Articles Portal Research Tool and pertinent reference lists using the terms "Métis," "health" and "Canada." Two reviewers conducted the initial searches independently, including English articles from 2012 to 2022, and focused on only Métis populations' health within Canada. We described characteristics of the articles and themes for discussion. RESULTS: Of the 572 articles we identified, we included a total of 28 articles in this scoping review, of which 16 were quantitative, 9 were qualitative and 3 used mixed methods. Thirteen articles used consultation with Métis communities as part of their methods, and 8 extracted data from national surveys. One article focused on children, while all other articles focused on adults. Nine articles used data from across Canada, 6 were based in Ontario, 5 in Alberta and 4 each in British Columbia and Manitoba. Themes included health, well-being and spirituality; mental health and substance use; health conditions and risk factors; access to adequate health resources; and experiences in health care. INTERPRETATION: Métis-specific health research is lacking in Canada, with a gap in volume, subject matter and diversity in the demographics studied. This review illustrates the need for more research with strong community engagement to further explore Métis health and health service needs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".