MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295064627 · doi:10.3390/ijerph191811171

Cumulative Impacts of Diverse Land Uses in British Columbia, Canada: Application of the “EnviroScreen” Method

2022· article· en· W4295064627 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chris G. Buse, Aita Bezzola, Jordan Brubacher, Tim K. Takaro, Arthur L. Fredeen, Margot W. Parkes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusPercentileEthnic groupGeographySustainabilityCumulative effectsPercentile rankDistribution (mathematics)Health equityHealth impact assessmentLand useEnvironmental justiceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental healthEnvironmental sciencePublic healthPolitical scienceHealth careMedicineStatisticsEconomic growthEcologyPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Objectives: Cumulative impacts refer to the legacies of land use decisions on environmental, community and health values. New integrative impact assessment tools are required to assess cumulative impacts on diverse values to meet sustainability goals in the 21st century. In this contribution, the CalEnviroScreen methodology-a screening tool capable of merging environmental, socioeconomic and health data-is applied to Local Health Areas in British Columbia, Canada. (2) Methods: The CalEnviroScreen is a method that standardizes environmental, socioeconomic and health data to depict an indicator's percentile rank in the distribution of all units of analysis. The method combines indicators to measure four dimensions of pressure: environmental exposures, environmental effects, socioeconomic conditions, and sensitive populations (i.e., health outcomes). We create two versions of EnviroScreen: one following the CalEnviroScreen suite of indicators, and another that uses nuanced indicators to approximate the realities of industrial land uses present in British Columbia. BCEnviroScreen scores are plotted by race/ethnicity to understand potential racial inequities in cumulative exposures. (3) Results: The BCEnviroScreen has a greater likelihood of quantifying the cumulative impacts of diverse industries and land uses present across resource-dependent parts of the province, relative to the more urban-centric CalEnviroScreen indicator suite. Analyzing the distribution of BCEnviroScreen scores by race/ethnicity suggests that visible minority populations may be inequitably exposed to cumulative impacts in BC. (4) Conclusion: EnviroScreen tools hold significant potential to influence Canadian environmental health policy. This research demonstrates the applicability of the tool to British Columbia and other jurisdictions, illustrates how indicators can be tailored to better represent regional context, and shows how the tool can be used to screen for potential environmental health injustices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207