Exploring relationships between household crowding and health in two First Nations communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasting results of federal government influence for housing on-reserve include challenges with housing quantity and quality. Some First Nations communities face distressing housing shortages and household crowding. This study used a cross-sectional survey and the Canadian National Occupancy Standard definition of crowding to explore how household crowding affects health of people living on-reserve. and. First Nations Peoples from two reserve communities in Saskatchewan participated, a total of 831 individuals 18 years and older from 379 households. Household crowding and reports of respiratory diseases were high. The household crowding measure was significantly associated with chronic bronchitis. A culturally appropriate lens and more context are needed to understand household crowding on-reserve. • Many households on-reserve are over-crowded, as defined by Federal standards. • The Western developed National Occupancy Standard does not consider Indigenous cultural. • Federal housing supports have not had a cultural context and contribute to the current housing crisis on-reserve. • Household crowding was significantly associated with chronic bronchitis. • Cultural contexts are important for understanding and evaluating wellbeing and housing on-reserve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".