MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300865028 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062449

Measuring negative emotional responses to climate change among young people in survey research: a systematic review protocol

2022· review· en· W4300865028 on OpenAlexafffund
Gina Martin, Alina Cosma, Tasha Roswell, Martin Anderson, Kathleen Leslie, Kiffer G. Card, Kalysha Closson, Angel Kennedy, Maya Gislason

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaAthabasca University
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAthabasca University
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Survey researchPublic healthAlternative medicineFamily medicineEnvironmental healthApplied psychologyNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Many young people report experiencing negative emotional responses to their awareness of climate change and the threats it poses to their future. With that, an increasing number of survey instruments have been developed to examine young people's negative emotional responses to their awareness of climate change. This report describes a protocol for a systematic review that aims to identify, synthesise and critically appraise how negative emotional responses to climate change among young people have been measured in survey research. The research questions addressed in this review are: (1) How has negative emotional responses to climate change been defined and measured among young people? (2) How do survey instruments measuring young people's negative emotional responses to climate change vary in terms of reliability and validity? (3) What factors are associated with negative emotional responses to climate change among young people? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Seven academic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and Environment Complete) will be searched to retrieve studies published between 1 January 2006 and 31 March 2022 and published in English. Studies including survey instruments that measure negative emotional responses among young people (aged 10-24 years) will be eligible for inclusion. Targeted journals will be hand-searched. This review will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews. The methodological quality, in terms of reliability and validity, of the included studies will be assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist for risk of bias of patient-reported outcome measures. To rate the quality of the instruments, we will use a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations technique defined by the COSMIN guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable for this study. We will disseminate the findings through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022295733.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.943
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207