MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114774272 · doi:10.7202/1121529ar

Healthcare Access of Autistic Language Minorities: The Case of English Official Language Minorities in Quebec, Canada

2025· article· fr· W7114774272 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMinorités linguistiques et société · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careFace (sociological concept)Minority languageOfficial languageIntersection (aeronautics)Language barrier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English and French are both official languages in Canada. Whereas official language minorities (English speakers in Quebec, French speakers in the rest of Canada) face healthcare barriers and poor health outcomes, autistic individuals and their families also struggle with accessing healthcare. We examined healthcare access at the intersection of these groups: the autistic community, including English minority-language speakers from Quebec, French majority-language speakers from Quebec, and English majority-language speakers from elsewhere in Canada (n = 165). Linguistic minorities reported poorer access to publicly-funded services and lower satisfaction that their language needs were being met than did linguistic majorities. Foreign-born English speakers also experienced poorer access than their Canadian-born counterparts. These preliminary findings suggest that autistic language minorities face known barriers to accessing healthcare, potentially at a higher rate than that experienced by language minorities in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinorités linguistiques et sociétéSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207