MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394807726 · doi:10.17269/s41997-024-00867-9

Design and implementation of the Our Health Counts (OHC) methodology for First Nations, Inuit, and Metis (FNIM) health assessment and response in urban and related homelands

2024· article· en· W4394807726 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Janet Smylie, Cheryllee Bourgeois, Marcie Snyder, Raglan Maddox, Stephanie McConkey, Michael Rotondi, Conrad Prince, Brian Dokis, Michael Hardy, Serena Joseph, Amanda Kilabuk, Jo-Ann Mattina, Monica Cyr, Genevieve Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev CanadaInuit Tapiriit KanatamiFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaWomen's College HospitalYork UniversityPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMetisIndigenousPopulationPopulation healthGeographyEnvironmental planningPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Methods for enumeration and population-based health assessment for First Nations, Inuit, and Metis (FNIM) living in Canadian cities are underdeveloped, with resultant gaps in essential demographic, health, and health service access information. Our Health Counts (OHC) was designed to engage FNIM peoples in urban centres in "by community, for community" population health assessment and response. METHODS: The OHC methodology was designed to advance Indigenous self-determination and FNIM data sovereignty in urban contexts through deliberate application of Indigenous principles and linked implementation strategies. Three interwoven principles (good relationships are foundational; research as gift exchange; and research as a vehicle for Indigenous community resurgence) provide the framework for linked implementation strategies which include actively building and maintaining relationships; meaningful Indigenous community guidance, leadership, and participation in all aspects of the project; transparent and equitable sharing of project resources and benefits; and technical innovations, including respondent-driven sampling, customized comprehensive health assessment surveys, and linkage to ICES data holdings to generate measures of health service use. RESULTS: OHC has succeeded across six urban areas in Ontario to advance Indigenous data sovereignty and health assessment capacity; recruit and engage large population-representative cohorts of FNIM living in urban and related homelands; customize comprehensive health surveys and data linkages; generate previously unavailable population-based FNIM demographic, health, and social information; and translate results into enhanced policy, programming, and practice. CONCLUSION: The OHC methodology has been demonstrated as effective, culturally relevant, and scalable across diverse Ontario cities.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Public Health→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→