MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407187634 · doi:10.1080/13557858.2025.2459766

Racism and ethnic discrimination among Indigenous Arctic populations: methods, data, definitions. A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4407187634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tobias Poggats, Per Axelsson

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnicity and Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMarcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfondUmeå Universitet
KeywordsRacismIndigenousEthnic groupArcticSociologyGeographyGender studiesAnthropologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Racism and ethnic discrimination are global health issues, but the extent and effects on Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic region are still poorly understood. By investigating the methods, data sources, and definitions used in articles examining racism and ethnic discrimination among Indigenous peoples in the Arctic between 2008 and 2021 this review aims to create a solid foundation for future research. DESIGN: We conducted a search across multiple databases, including PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Review. Our search criteria included: Indigenous groups, racism or ethnic discrimination, and Arctic regions. After removing off-topic articles, two researchers reviewed the remaining articles against predefined eligibility criteria. RESULTS: The research field is expanding, but a significant portion of Arctic Indigenous peoples remains underrepresented. Predominant research methods include questionnaires, interviews, and case studies, often derived from large cross-sectional studies. Self-reported responses to questions about ethnic discrimination and racism are the primary research method, while some articles involve researchers subjectively evaluating data to determine what qualifies as racism or ethnic discrimination. Reaching a consensus on the definitions of ethnic discrimination and racism is challenging, with definitions ranging from negative, unfair, or differential treatment to broader, structural perspectives. Approximately half of the articles lack clear definitions. CONCLUSION: There is a notable difference in terminology, where racism as a term is more used in Canada/US while, ethnic discrimination is more predominant in the Nordic countries. Despite these differences, the scales used to measure racism or ethnic discrimination show significant similarities. A large part of the investigated articles emphasize interpersonal discrimination. An emerging perspective after 2016 views racism/ethnic discrimination as something that produces inequalities between racial or ethnic groups and upholds or creates systems of privilege and oppression. Research consistently highlights the importance of considering local contexts of racism, ethnic discrimination and oppression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0290.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.619
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.002 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnicity and HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207