MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547241128 · doi:10.1108/ijhg-08-2016-0041

Governance for health in the Anthropocene

2016· article· en· W2547241128 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Hancock, Anthony Capon, U. Dietrich, Rebecca Patrick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Governance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneCorporate governanceEarth system sciencePolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsOriginalityEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningBusinessGeographyEcologyEconomicsLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the pressing issues facing health and health systems governance in the Anthropocene – a new geological time period that marks the age of colossal and rapid human impacts on Earth’s systems. Design/methodology/approach The viewpoint illustrates the extent of various human induced global ecological changes such as climate change and biodiversity loss and explores the social forces behind the new epoch. It draws together current scientific evidence and expert opinion on the Anthropocene’s health and health system impacts and warns that many these are yet unknown and likely to interact and compound each other. Findings Despite this uncertainty, health systems have four essential roles in the Anthropocene from adapting operations and preparing for future challenges to reducing their own contribution to global ecological changes and an advocacy role for social and economic changes for a healthier and more sustainable future. Practical implications To live up to this challenge, health services will need to expand from a focus on health governance to one on governance for health with a purpose of achieving equitable and sustainable human development. Originality/value As cities and local governments work to create more healthy, just and sustainable communities in the years ahead, health systems need to join with them as partners in that process, both as advocates and supporters and – through their own action within the health sector – as leading proponents and models of good practice.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.029
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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