MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010872770 · doi:10.1007/s00038-013-0499-5

Development of key indicators to quantify the health impacts of climate change on Canadians

2013· article· en· W2010872770 on OpenAlexafffundabout
June J. Cheng, Peter Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHealth Canada
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsClimate changePublic healthEnvironmental healthHealth indicatorScale (ratio)MedicineGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at developing a list of key human health indicators for quantifying the health impacts of climate change in Canada. METHODS: A literature review was conducted in OVID Medline to identify health morbidity and mortality indicators currently used to quantify climate change impacts. Public health frameworks and other studies of climate change indicators were reviewed to identify criteria with which to evaluate the list of proposed key indicators and a rating scale was developed. Total scores for each indicator were calculated based on the rating scale. RESULTS: A total of 77 health indicators were identified from the literature. After evaluation using the chosen criteria, 8 indicators were identified as the best for use. They include excess daily all-cause mortality due to heat, premature deaths due to air pollution (ozone and particulate matter 2.5), preventable deaths from climate change, disability-adjusted life years lost from climate change, daily all-cause mortality, daily non-accidental mortality, West Nile Disease incidence, and Lyme borreliosis incidence. CONCLUSIONS: There is need for further data and research related to health effect quantification in the area of climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Public HealthSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207