322 International Journal of Circumpolar Health 69:4 2010 Canadian Aboriginal\trisk\tstudy\ttrends REVIEW Trends in\tthe\tstudy\tof\tAboriginal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To identify trends in the study of health risk in peer-reviewed and grey literature in Canadian Aboriginal populations from 1960 to 2007. Study design. Systematic literature review and analysis. Methods. Peer-reviewed literature was searched using 5 electronic library databases. The grey literature was searched using 3 online search engines, 4 agency websites and 2 online compiled databases. The search terms used were “Canada, ” synonyms for Canadian Aboriginal peoples and “risk. ” Citations were screened for relevance to Aboriginal populations and risks to aspects of human health. Results. Both literatures show an exponential growth in risk-focused study of Canadian Aborig-inal health issues over time. There is a geographic foci in the North with the Prairies and the West under-represented. Risk is most commonly used in relation to general health, environmental, zoonotic infections and chronic diseases in the peer-reviewed literature, and general health or envi-ronment in the grey literature. Most publications in both literatures are on generalized Aboriginal populations. When specified, a larger proportion of the publications relate to First Nations people,
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".