MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302481735 · doi:10.1111/disa.12188

The 2004 tsunami and mental health in Thailand: a longitudinal analysis of one‐and two‐year post‐disaster data

2016· article· en· W2302481735 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Peter C. Coyte, Kwame McKenzie, Samuel Noh

Bibliographic record

VenueDisasters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Geographic Society
KeywordsMental healthFamily memberOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsCohortPsychiatryCohort studyEnvironmental healthGerontologyPsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some 280,000 people died in the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26 December 2004. This cohort study examined its impact on mental health one and two years later. It did so by investigating the association between six consequent variables (personal injury, loss of home, loss of business, death of a family member, injury to a family member, or loss of a family member's business) and mental health, as measured by the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), among residents in four provinces of Thailand. One year later, participants who suffered a personal injury, the loss of a business, or the loss of a family member reported poorer mental health than those who were unaffected. Two years later, participants who experienced the loss of a family member reported poorer mental health than those who were unaffected. This research shows that such a disaster may have long-lasting ramifications for mental health, and that diverse losses may influence mental health differently.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisastersSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207