Introduction to the Special Issue: Indigenous Self-determination in Health System Reforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and communities live in rural, remote, Northern and reserve places, as well as urban places, and experience health inequities when compared with non-Indigenous peoples. These inequities are founded by pervasive colonial ideologies, policies, systems, and practices, many of which persist today resulting in multiple disparities in health as well as social, political, and economic areas (Adelson 2005; Allan and Smylie 2015). In Canada, the federal government’s role in the provision of health services is primarily through the limited public health and prevention services offered by the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB), now Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). Services are offered to status (registered) First Nations living on-reserve and to Inuit living in their traditional territories. They provide non-insured health benefits (NIHB) such as prescription drugs, dental, and vision coverage to all status/registered First Nations and Inuit, regardless of where they live; however, non-insured health benefits are not offered to Métis or non-status First Nations. As a result of historical legislative vagueness, and the multiplicity of authorities that has resulted, the First Nations, Inuit and Métis legislation and health policy framework is very complex, which itself results in a great deal of diversity in health service provision across provinces and territories. The framework fails to adequately address the health care needs of the Métis or First Nations and Inuit people who are either not registered or not living on reserve or in their traditional territory (Lavoie and Gervais 2012). [continued in PDF / HTML]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".