MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767972237 · doi:10.1177/2053019617739640

Human health and social-ecological systems change: Rethinking health in the Anthropocene

2017· article· en· W2767972237 on OpenAlexaff
Katharine Zywert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anthropocene Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneEcological systems theoryEnvironmental ethicsHealth careClimate changeContext (archaeology)SociologyEcologyEnvironmental resource managementGeographyPolitical scienceBiologyEnvironmental scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review article considers how social-ecological systems change is transforming human health in the Anthropocene. From hunting and gathering bands through modern globalized societies, human health has been shaped by circular feedbacks between ecological processes, available energy sources, levels of social complexity, and cultural ontologies. As the environmental crises of the early Anthropocene (biodiversity loss, climate change, land use changes) push ecosystems across thresholds into new configurations, we are experiencing an equally profound transition for human health. Drawing on literatures from medical anthropology, sociology, complexity science, and ecological economics, this article argues that promising alternatives for health systems in the Anthropocene are emerging beyond the boundaries of the formal healthcare sector in community-based practices that can take root in a context of ecological limits, economic contraction, and growing networks of reciprocal care.

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)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anthropocene ReviewSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207