MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011271710 · doi:10.1111/gec3.12494

Beyond “Snow Shoveler's Infarction”: Broadening perspectives on winter health risks

2020· article· en· W3011271710 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christa Haney

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowGeographyHazardEnvironmental healthOccupational safety and healthPublic healthDisadvantagedMedicineMeteorologyPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Winter constitutes a significant threat to humans via damages, injuries, and fatalities in mid and high latitude environments. Much of the research into the health impacts of winter centers on urban areas in the snow climates of North America. When considering how humans are vulnerable to winter hazards, the legend of Snow‐Shoveler's Infarction dominates the public's assessment of winter health risks. This article seeks to broaden the understanding of winter hazards by summarizing the diversity of impacts on human health including frostbite, hypothermia, traffic accidents, slips, and falls, unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning in addition to injuries, and fatalities associated with snow removal. Further, social determinants such as poverty and social isolation are identified as being associated with negative health outcomes. The disproportionate health impacts of winter are also summarized, thus revealing how some groups, particularly the disadvantaged, the elderly and those with preexisting health issues in urbanized snow climates of the United States and Canada, are more vulnerable to winter hazards.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeography CompassSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207