158 International Journal of Circumpolar Health 69:2 2010 Health of Canadian Aboriginal children ORIGINAL ARTICLE The health of Canada’s Aboriginal children: results from the First Nations and Inuit Regional Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Reports on child health in Canada often refer to the disproportionate burden of poor health experienced by Aboriginal children and youth, yet little national data are avail-able. This paper describes the health of First Nations and Inuit children and youth based on the First Nations and Inuit Regional Health Survey (FNIRHS). Study design. The FNIRHS combines data from 9 regional surveys conducted in 1996-1997 in Aboriginal reserve communities in all provinces. The target population consisted of all on-reserve communities. All households or a random sample of households or adults (depending on province) were selected based on their population representation. Methods. One child was randomly selected from each participating household, except in Ontario and Nova Scotia, where children were randomly selected based upon their popula-tion representation. Alberta did not include the section on children’s health in their regional survey. Results. Approximately 84 % of adults, who were proxy respondents for their child, rated their children’s health as very good or excellent. The most frequently reported conditions were ear
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".