MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394962400 · doi:10.1002/ieam.4927

Exploring practices, challenges, and priorities for human health and ecological risk assessments in Indigenous communities in Canada

2024· article· en· W4394962400 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katherine Chong, Gordon M. Hickey, Hing Man Chan, Niladri Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsIndigenousRisk assessmentEnvironmental healthEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyBusinessMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Indigenous peoples in Canada are disproportionately exposed to environmental contaminants and may face elevated health risks related to their unique cultural, spiritual, and economic relationships with the land, including the use of traditional food systems. However, to date, institutionalized approaches to assess risks to human and ecological health from contaminants have not been well developed or implemented with Indigenous community contexts in mind. There is regulatory interest in developing new approach methods for risk assessment, and thus an opportunity to increase their relevance to Indigenous communities in which they will be ultimately applied. Therefore, we conducted an anonymous mixed-methods survey of those involved with risk assessment in Indigenous communities in Canada to: (1) understand risk assessment practice in Indigenous communities, (2) explore challenges with conventional assessment methods and compare these across sectors, and (3) gather perspectives on the development of new approaches. In all, 38 completed survey responses were received (14% response rate). Respondents were from Indigenous community environment and health offices (21% of respondents), Indigenous governments (8%), federal and provincial governments (21%), and academia (45%). Risk communication was seen as the most challenging part of risk assessment (71% responded “difficult”), and nearly all respondents agreed that time (86%), cost (76%), and resource availability (86%) were “moderate” to “serious” problems. Few respondents (16%) had heard of “new approach methods” for risk assessment, and 76% of respondents (and 100% of community-based respondents) agreed on the need to develop improved risk assessment approaches. To modernize risk assessment, respondents recommended advancing cumulative risk assessment methods, improving risk communication, and promoting Indigenous leadership and Traditional Knowledge in assessment activities. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1677–1692. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points The online survey was completed by 38 respondents from across Canada who had experience with human health and ecological risk assessments, spanning a diversity of sectors including Indigenous communities, provincial and federal governments, and academia. Cumulative risk assessment, risk communication, and resource availability were identified as some of the most challenging aspects of risk assessment in the context of Indigenous communities in Canada and may be key considerations in the development of new, community-relevant methods. Perspectives differed among groups (community-based respondents, federal and provincial employees, and academics), signaling a need for further research in this area and implementation of strategies to improve multisectoral collaboration and communication. Most (76%) respondents agreed on the need for new approaches to risk assessment for Indigenous community contexts, and this agreement was unanimous (100%) among those who worked in communities themselves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207