Understanding the Differential Impact of Vegetation Measures on Modeling the Association between Vegetation and Psychotic and Non-Psychotic Disorders in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable debate exists on whether exposure to vegetation cover is associated with better mental health outcomes. Past studies could not accurately capture people's exposure to surrounding vegetation and heavily relied on non-spatial models, where the spatial autocorrelation and latent covariates could not be adjusted. Therefore, a suite of five different vegetation measures was used to separately analyze the association between vegetation cover and the number of psychotic and non-psychotic disorder cases in the neighborhoods of Toronto, Canada. Three satellite-based and two area-based vegetation measures were used to analyze these associations using Poisson lognormal models under a Bayesian framework. Healthy vegetation cover was found to be negatively associated with both psychotic and non-psychotic disorders. Results suggest that the satellite-based indices, which can measure both the density and health of vegetation cover and are also adjusted for urban and environmental perturbations, could be better alternatives to simple ratio- and area-based measures for understanding the effect of vegetation on mental health. A strong dominance of spatially structured latent covariates was found in the models, highlighting the importance of adopting a spatial approach. This study can provide critical guidelines for selecting appropriate vegetation measures and developing spatial models for future population-based epidemiological research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".