Examining obstetric-related hospitalization outcomes among female immigrants at risk of female genital mutilation/cutting in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-border migration has implications for immigrant experiences of the host country’s health care system and health care provisions. Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a traditional practice performed on young girls between infancy and age 15. While illegal in Canada, proxy estimates of females aged 0 to 49 years at risk of FGM/C in the country range from 95,000 to 161,000, based on internationally accepted estimation methodologies. Two of the top source continents for immigrants in Canada – Asia and Africa – demonstrate high prevalence of FGM/C, raising concerns about implications for the health outcomes of female immigrants who are at risk of having undergone the practice and the need for awareness among health care professionals and other stakeholders. To date, little is known about the health outcomes for females at risk of having undergone FGM/C and who are living in Canada. Using Canadian linked administrative data, the Longitudinal Immigration Database (1980-2013) and Discharge Abstract Database (2004-2005 to 2013-2014), regression analyses were conducted to compare causes of hospitalizations for female immigrants born in countries identified at risk for FGM/C and female immigrants from non-FGM/C practicing countries. The results suggest female immigrants from FGM/C-practicing countries appear to be at higher-risk for obstetric-related conditions requiring acute-care hospitalization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".