Cancer prevention and cultural continuity for Métis Peoples in Canada: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Within Canada, cancer incidence has been significantly increasing among Métis people compared to the non-Indigenous population. Further, Métis people experience lower cancer survival rates due to barriers with accessing healthcare. One aspect shown to improve Métis physical and mental health is connecting to culture, as it is an important to the individual and community well-being for Métis people. Therefore, cultural continuity has the potential to be successfully integrated into cancer prevention and health promotion strategies in Canada. This scoping review aims to identify the literature on cultural continuity for Métis people and its role in health promotion and cancer prevention in Canada. Methods and Analysis: This study will follow methodological guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews and draw from other established frameworks and guidelines for scoping reviews. We will conduct electronic searches on Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, and I-Portal (the University of Saskatchewan’s Indigenous Studies Database). We will also hand-search specific journals related to our review question. Finally, a grey literature search will include unpublished data from Indigenous health and governmental websites, as well as online search engines. After piloting a data extraction form that will be used to ensure consistency in themes and elements throughout the data, two reviewers will independently select articles and extract the data. Ethics: No primary data will be collected in this review; therefore, the review is exempt from research ethics approval. Dissemination: The results of this review will be shared with project partners (Métis Nation – Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency) and will be submitted for peer review publication. Our findings will be presented at relevant national and international meetings.
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 | 0.100 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.011 |
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".