MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405980061 · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2025.44

How Should Epidemiologists Respond to Data Genocide?

2025· article· en· W4405980061 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AMA Journal of Ethic · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideColonialismData collectionCriminologyPolitical scienceData qualityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public relationsSociologyMedicineLawSocial scienceBusinessPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data quality for and about American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people is undermined by deeply entrenched, colonial practices that have become standard in US federal data systems.This article draws on cases of maternal mortality and COVID-19 to demonstrate the ethical and clinical need for inclusive, diverse, and accurate data when researching AI/AN health trends.This article further argues that epidemiologists specifically must challenge implicit bias, question methods and practices, and recognize colonial, racist reporting practices about AI/AN people that have long undermined data collection, analytical, and dissemination practices that are fundamental to epidemiological research.The American Medical Association designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit available through the AMA Ed Hub TM .Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.708
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.091 · 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