Using latent class analysis to operationalize a wholistic assessment of Inuit health and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many indigenous cultures conceptualize health wholistically, whereby physical, mental, spiritual and relational dimensions of health are interconnected. Yet, quantitative approaches to studying Indigenous health remain anchored in western perspectives, that separate the dimensions of health. This paper aims to operationalize a wholistic indicator of health based on the IQI model of Inuit health. Variables from the 2017 Nunavik Health Survey (N = 1196) were selected based on their representativeness of IQI model. Exploratory Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to identify wholistic health profiles. Once participants assigned to their health profile, sociodemographic characteristics were compared across profiles, and multinomial regression models were used to examine the relationship between community-level social determinants of health and the profiles. The LCA revealed three health profiles, labelled as “excellent”, “good” and “fair” based on the distribution of answers to the indicators. Nunavimmiut in “excellent” and “good” health were more likely to: rate their health positively; be over 30 years old; be in a relationship; and have participated or volunteered in community events. Nunavimmiut in ”fair” health tended to report lower levels of community cohesion, family relationships, and emotional support. Intergrating culturally relevant models of health can support improved health status assessments and identify opportunities for health promotion.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".