MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017409734 · doi:10.1289/ehp6302

Erratum: “The Role of Humidity in Associations of High Temperature with Mortality: A Multicountry, Multicity Study”

2019· erratum· en· W3017409734 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Armstrong, Francesco Sera, Ana M. Vicedo‐Cabrera, Rosana Abrutzky, Daniel Oudin Åström, Michelle L. Bell, Bing‐Yu Chen, Micheline de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coêlho, Patricia Matus Correa, Trần Ngọc Đăng, Magali Hurtado‐Díaz, Do Van Dung, Bertil Forsberg, Patrick Goodman, Yue Leon Guo, Yuming Guo, Masahiro Hashizume, Yasushi Honda, Ene Indermitte, Carmen Íñiguez, Haidong Kan, Ho Kim, Jan Kyselý, Éric Lavigne, Paola Michelozzi, Hans Orru, Nicolás Valdés Ortega, Mathilde Pascal, Martina S. Ragettli, Paulo Hilário Nascimento Saldiva, Joel Schwartz, Matteo Scortichini, Xerxes Seposo, Aurelio Tobı́as, Shilu Tong, Aleš Urban, César De la Cruz Valencia, Antonella Zanobetti, Ariana Zeka, Antonio Gasparrini

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2019
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsArtHumanitiesCartographyArt historyPhilosophyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During editing, the article title, “The Role of Humidity in Associations of High Temperature with Mortality: A Multi country, Multicity Study,” was inadvertently changed to “The Role of Humidity in Associations of High Temperature with Mortality: A Multi author, Multicity Study.” The title of the article has been corrected. The authors and EHP regret the error.

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)0.078
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.013

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207