(P1-97) Long-Term Effects of a Flood on the Psychosocial Health of Victims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long term Effects of a Flood on the Psychosocial Health of Victims D. Maltais1 et L. Lachance2, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada, 1Département des sciences humaines, 2Département des sciences de la santé In July 1996, floods disrupted the lives of thousands of people living in rural and urban communities in the Saguenay area of Quebec. Data collected three years after the events showed that flood victims experienced more precarious psychological health, with various factors being controlled including sex, age, and life events. Flood victims demonstrated more post-traumatic symptoms, somatic symptoms, social dysfunctions, and depressive symptoms than non-victims. Victims also showed significantly lower levels of psychological well-being than non-victims. In order to identify the long-term impacts of flood exposure, a second study was conducted eight years after the event (2004) with the same groups of victims (N = 129) and non-victims (N = 89). Variance analyses show that urban survivors obtained improved scores on scales measuring PTSD, and depression yet remained significantly more affected than non-victims. Over time, victims also obtained improved scores on the GHQ-28 and the Affect Balance Scale yet also remained significantly different from non-victims on the GHQ-28. Rural victims improved their GHQ scores over time as well, yet maintained significant differences with rural non-victims for the PTSD score. No significant differences were observed over time (time 1 and time 2) or between groups (victims and non-victims) regarding psychological well-being and depressive symptoms in rural area.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".