Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Little information has been published about the mortality of the Métis people of Canada. This study describes mortality patterns among Métis and Registered Indian adults, compared with the non-Aboriginal population. Data source and methods The 1991 to 2001 Canadian census mortality follow-up study tracked mortality among a 15 % sample of respondents aged 25 or older, including 11,800 Métis, 56,700 Registered Indians and 2,624,300 non-Aboriginal adults, all of whom were enumerated by the 1991 census long-form questionnaire. Age-specifi c and age-standardized mortality rates and period life tables based on the number of person-years at risk were calculated across the various groups. Métis were defi ned by ethnic origin (ancestry). Results Compared with non-Aboriginal members of the cohort, life expectancy at age 25 was 3.3 and 5.5 years shorter for Métis men and women, respectively, and 4.4 and 6.3 years shorter for Registered Indians. For both Aboriginal groups, mortality rate ratios were highest at younger ages. Mortality rate differences among Métis men were particularly elevated for external causes and circulatory, respiratory and digestive system diseases; among Métis women, for circulatory system diseases, cancers, and digestive and respiratory system diseases. Generally, rate differences for Registered Indian men and women were further elevated. Conclusions Métis adults had higher mortality rates compared with non-Aboriginal members of the cohort, but lower rates than did Registered Indians.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.025 |
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".