J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 15:4 November 2006 157 Guest Editorial Improving the Mental Health Status of Canada’s Aboriginal Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been ten years since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) released its Final Report. Numerous recommendations grouped into major themes had the common goal of improving the relationship between Canada and its Aboriginal Peoples. There were specific recommendations to address the disparities in health status between the general Canadian population and Aboriginal Peoples. As such, the report was released with great optimism and hope by its authors and in turn, was met with considerable expectations on the part of Aboriginal people for positive change. The creation of the Institute of Aboriginal Peoples Health (IAPH) in 2000, one of thirteen institutes comprising the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the government of Canada’s health research funding agency, is regarded as playing a major role in advancing the Aboriginal health research agenda. Specific initiatives funded by IAPH, including the National Network for Aboriginal Mental Health Research (NNAMHR) have brought together collectives of researchers who may previ-ously have been working in isolation. These researchers have been able to access funding through CIHR and other agencies to work collaboratively with Aboriginal communities in addressing research questions that are both pressing and relevant. This special theme issue of the Journal is an opportu-nity to share a small sample of some of the innovative work and thinking that is taking place across
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".