Cancer Prevention and Cultural Continuity for Métis Peoples in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this scoping review was to map the literature on the relationship between cultural continuity and health among Métis people as well as how this knowledge could be translated into cancer prevention initiatives. We included any Métis-specific literature evaluating connections between culture, health, and well-being. We conducted electronic searches of Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, I-Portal, and hand-searched journals, and reviewed the grey literature. Based on our inclusion criteria, articles were screened and assessed for eligibility, resulting in a sample of 22 publications. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs were considered. The 22 publications included in this review were diverse, ranging from population-based studies to reports and news articles. There were no limitations to publication year, and most of the data presented in this review were published more than five years ago. Nevertheless, the results demonstrate the potential role of Métis cultural continuity in cancer prevention. The scoping review revealed the current lack of Métis-specific data regarding health and its intersectionality with culture. However, the existing literature indicates that cultural continuity for Métis appears to influence health and well-being positively. As such, there may be benefits to incorporating cultural continuity in cancer prevention efforts.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".