Exploring practices, challenges, and priorities for human health and ecological risk assessments in Indigenous communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".