MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238465317 · doi:10.3410/f.735730661.793578522

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Factors influencing the mental health consequences of climate change in canada.

2020· dataset· en· W4238465317 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthClimate changePsychologyApplied psychologyEnvironmental healthMedical educationMedicinePsychiatryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is increasing risks to the mental health of Canadians.Impacts from a changing climate may outstrip the ability of Canadians and their health-sustaining institutions to adapt effectively and could increase poor mental health outcomes, particularly amongst those most marginalized in society.A scoping review of literature published during 2000-2017 explored risks, impacts, and vulnerabilities related to climate change and mental health.In this commentary, the authors present a new assessment of evidence from this scoping review and highlight factors that influence the capacity to adapt to the mental health consequences of a changing climate.Findings from this assessment reveal eleven key factors that influence the capacity to adapt: social capital; sense of community; government assistance; access to resources; community preparedness; intersectoral/transdisciplinary collaboration; vulnerability and adaptation assessments; communication and outreach; mental health literacy; and culturally relevant resources.Attention to these factors by Canadian decision makers can support proactive and effective management of the mental health consequences of climate change.

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)0.040
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.024

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207