MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092362050 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n6p1

Report on Maternal Anxiety 16 Months After the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster: Anxiety Over Radioactivity

2014· article· en· W2092362050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hatsumi Yoshii, Hidemitsu Saito, Saya Kikuchi, Takashi Ueno, Kineko Sato

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDistrustMedicinePopulationPoison controlEnvironmental healthPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Great East Japan Earthquake occurred on March 11, 2011. The tsunami caused extensive damage to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in a level 7 nuclear accident. Among those affected by this combined disaster were many pregnant and parturient women. Sixteen months after the earthquake, we conducted a questionnaire survey on anxiety among 259 women who gave birth around the time of the earthquake in Miyagi Prefecture, one of the affected areas. Participants reported 12 categories of anxiety, including anxiety over radioactivity. This study aimed to determine anxiety over radioactivity among this specific population and to record measures for future study. Anxiety over radiation was classified into seven subcategories: food safety, outdoor safety, effects on the fetuses of pregnant women, effects on children, radiation exposure, economic problems, and distrust of information disclosed. This study confirmed that concrete types of anxiety over radiation were keenly felt by mothers who had experienced the disaster who were currently raising children. The findings suggest the need to provide accurate information to these mothers, who are otherwise inundated with miscellaneous confusing information.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207