MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990440369 · doi:10.1289/isee.2014.eth-16

Ethical considerations for climate change and population health

2014· article· en· W2990440369 on OpenAlexaff
Colin L. Soskolne

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changePublic healthPopulationScarcityPopulation healthEnvironmental planningExtreme weatherEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental healthSocioeconomic statusGeographyNatural resource economicsMedicineEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is becoming a major public health problem given the long-term impact on mortality and morbidity through extreme weather, water scarcity, spreading of infectious diseases and the influence on vulnerable populations. The main sources of climate change are not generated in the same countries that are suffering the burden of health impacts. Coastal cities are more prone to flooding as a result of climate change, but these places might not be the top generators of CO2 emissions. Similarly, infectious diseases spreading north of the equator into new areas of habitat are more likely to affect the low socioeconomic populations in these areas who do not have access to appropriate prevention and health care. These require more thoughtfulness and consideration by population researchers, such as epidemiologists in attempting to identify cause-effect and focusing their research on identifying how actions by one population can impact another more vulnerable population. What are the ethical implications of such public health challenges and what kind of research should epidemiologists propose to address these challenges? These and other questions will be addressed as part of the discussion in this session.

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)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.294
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.294
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.036
Scholarly communication0.0200.014
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0620.074
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISEE Conference AbstractsSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207