MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034898465

32. Using Our Languages Improves Our Health (I)

2023· article· en· W7034898465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mathematics Enthusiast · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessIndigenousEquity (law)Relation (database)VocabularyBody languageIndigenous languageEthnography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During this workshop, together we'll become aware of connections between language use and wellbeing. We'll talk about how different cultures define health. (“Western Desert Aborigines see 'health' not only in the absence of sickness, but more positively: on the physical side, in the presence of coldness and dryness in the body, and on the spiritual side, in having one’s spirit in the area of the stomach. Conversely, when the spirit moves to the back of a person or leaves the body altogether, when the body is hot and wet, then the person is considered sick.” Peile, A. R. 1997 Body and Soul: An Aboriginal View. Victoria Park, WA: Hesperian Press. p. xxi.) We'll review some case studies connecting ancestral language use to rates of diabetes, suicide, and substance abuse. (Oster, Richard, Angela Grier, Rick Lightning, Maria J. Mayan, and Ellen L. Toth. 2014. Cultural continuity, traditional Indigenous language, and diabetes in Alberta First Nations: a mixed methods study. International Journal for Equity in Health 13(92). (doi:10.1186/s12939-014-0092-4)) (Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J., & Lalonde, C. (2007). Aboriginal Language Knowledge and Youth Suicide. Cognitive Development 22 (3), pp. 392–399.) (Chandler, M. J. & Lalonde, C. E. (2008). Cultural Continuity as a Protective Factor against Suicide in First Nations Youth. Horizons --A Special Issue on Aboriginal Youth, Hope or Heartbreak: Aboriginal Youth and Canada’s Future. 10(1), 68-72.)) Weʼll share eye witness accounts of language use and its relation to health from our own and othersʼ experiences. Weʼll consider the difference between correlation and causation. Weʼll consider various health factors; emotional, physical, social, spiritual, economic, educational and how we might collect evidence-based data to support language-health causation. Weʼll practice our arguments to authorities [family, community, legislature, health industry, congress] to support ancestral Indigenous language based on the health benefits it provides.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1130.086

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mathematics EnthusiastSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207