enweyin Volume VII, 2002-2003 The Health Status of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Reflection, Realization and Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“[A] great many people have little access to health care […] and spend their lives fighting unnecessary morbidity ” (Sen, 1999:15). To Nobel-laureate Amartya Sen, this is a fundamental form of ‘unfreedom. ’ To many Aboriginal1 people, it is a characteristic of contemporary existence within the boundaries of Canada. Because the health status of Native people has continued to register as inequitably poor, despite the existence of socialized medicine and a proliferation of government health programs, claims that a simple increase in health services or a reorganization of the health care budget will have a positive impact are no longer sensible. And with Indigenous peoples bearing a disproportionate amount of excess and premature morbidity and mortality, such claims are no longer ethical. Historical Background [I]ndigenous peoples of the Americas knew many cures for illnesses long before medicine in Europe became a science (Colomeda and Wenzel, 2000:247). Before the arrival of Europeans in North America, “there were already in existence
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".