MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307935320 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273125

Integrated analysis of doubly disadvantaged neighborhoods by considering both green space and blue space accessibility and COVID-19 infection risk

2022· article· en· W4307935320 on OpenAlexaff
Dong Liu, Mei‐Po Kwan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersChinese University of Hong Kong
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DisadvantagedGeographyDistribution (mathematics)Mental health2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSpace (punctuation)PandemicMental distressSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Public healthEnvironmental healthMedicineEconomic growthVirologyComputer scienceMathematicsOutbreakEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has taken a heavy toll on the physical and mental health of the public. Nevertheless, the presence of green and blue spaces has been shown to be able to encourage physical activities and alleviate the mental distress caused by COVID-19. However, just as the impact of COVID-19 varies by geographical region and area, the distribution of green and blue spaces is also different across different neighborhoods and areas. By using Hong Kong as the study area, we determine the local neighborhoods that suffer from both high COVID-19 infection risk as well as low green and blue space accessibility. The results show that some of the poorest neighborhoods in the territory such as Sham Shui Po, Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin are also among the most doubly disadvantaged in terms of COVID-19 infection risk as well as green and blue space accessibility.

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)0.002
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207