MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392554711 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3982232/v1

Indigenous Peoples’ evaluation of health risks when facing mandatory evacuation for birth during the COVID-19 pandemic: An Indigenous feminist analysis

2024· preprint· en· W4392554711 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melanie Murdock, Erika Campbell, Sarah M. Durant, Carol Couchie, Carmel Meekis, Charity Rae, Julie Kenequanash, Arthi Erika Jeyamohan, Jacob Barry, Karen Lawford

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCarleton UniversityQueen's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)GeographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthCriminologyEnvironmental healthMedicineSociologyVirologyOutbreakEconomicsBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Indigenous Peoples living on Turtle Island are comprised of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people and because of the Government of Canada’s mandatory evacuation policy, those living in rural and remote regions of Ontario are required to travel to urban, tertiary care centres to give birth. When evaluating the risk of travelling for birth, Indigenous Peoples understand, evaluate, and conceptualise health risks differently than Eurocentric biomedical models of health. Also, the global COVID-19 pandemic changed how people perceived risks to their health. Our research goal was to better understand how Indigenous parturients living in rural and remote communities conceptualised the risks associated with evacuation for birth before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods To achieve this goal, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 parturients who travelled for birth during the pandemic and with 5 family members of those who were evacuated for birth. Results Participants conceptualised evacuation for birth as riskier during the COVID-19 pandemic and identified how the pandemic exacerbated existing risks of travelling for birth. In fact, Indigenous parturients noted the increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when travelling to urban centres for perinatal care, the impact of public health restrictions on increased isolation from family and community, the emotional impact of fear during the pandemic, and the decreased availability of quality healthcare. Conclusions Using Indigenous Feminist Methodology and Indigenous Feminist Theory, we critically analysed how mandatory evacuation for birth functions as a colonial tool and how conceptualizations of risk empowered Indigenous Peoples to make decisions that reduced risks to their health during the pandemic. With the results of this study, policy makers and governments can better understand how Indigenous Peoples conceptualise risk related to evacuation for birth before and during the pandemic, and prioritise further consultation with Indigenous Peoples to collaborate in the delivery of the health and care they need and desire.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.345
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207