MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163752134 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.658528

The Role of Social Determinants in Mental Health and Resilience After Disasters: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice

2021· review· en· W3163752134 on OpenAlexaff
Wanying Mao, Vincent I. O. Agyapong

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChinese Government Scholarship
KeywordsMental healthPublic healthNatural disasterPsychological resilienceVulnerability (computing)Social determinants of healthSuicide preventionSocioeconomic statusPoison controlSocial vulnerabilityEthnic groupPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthMedicinePolitical scienceGeographySocial psychologyComputer securityPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this general literature review, we will explore the impacts and contribution of social determinants to mental health and resiliency following both natural and man-made disasters. Natural disasters, such as wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes, as well as man-made disasters, such as civil wars, have been known to inflict significant damage to the mental health of the victims. In this paper, we mainly explore some most studied vulnerability and protective social determinant factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, socials support and socioeconomic status for the mental health and resiliency in survivors of such disasters. Several other possible factors such as previous trauma, childhood abuse, family psychiatric history, and subsequent life stress that were explored by some studies were also discussed. We conducted a literature search in major scientific databases, using keywords such as: mental health, social determinants, disasters, wildfires, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and resilience. We discuss the implications for public health policy and practice.

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)0.010
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.409 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations135
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207