Environmental health officers and climate change adaptation in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The average annual temperatures in British Columbia have been steadily increasing in recent history and are expected to continue to rise. Climate change impacts have a significant effect on public health, and adaptation to these changes is necessary. Environmental health officers (EHOs) are in a position to deliver climate change adaptation programs in public health. The purpose of this study was to assess EHO perception of climate change adaption and identify knowledge or policy gaps. Methods: A self-administered online survey created used Google Forms was distributed through e-mail and social media to EHOs in BC. The survey asked for demographics information, beliefs about climate change, adaption, and public health. Chi-square tests and descriptive statistics were used to analyze results. Results: There was a significant association found between working in a mixed urban and rural environment and the incorporation of climate change adaptation into practice and the belief that climate change has impacted public health in BC. No association was found between years of experience and incorporation of adaptation. Conclusion: While EHOs generally recognize the public health impacts of climate change, there are many barriers preventing EHO involvement in climate change adaptation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.000 |
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.
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".