Estimating climate change and mental health impacts in Canada: A cross-sectional survey protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change has severe and sweeping impacts on mental health. Although research is burgeoning on mental health impacts following climate and weather extremes, less is known about how common these impacts are outside of extreme events. Existing research exploring the prevalence of psychosocial responses to climate change primarily examines university students and uses non-random sampling methods. Herein, our protocol outlines an approach to data collection, processing, and analysis to estimate the population prevalence, magnitude, and distribution of mental health responses to climate change in Canada. A cross-sectional survey of youth and adults aged 13 years and older in Canada will be administered over the course of one year. The questionnaire will take approximately 10 minutes to complete orally and will be administered in English, French, and Inuktitut. The survey will consist of six sections: (1) self-reported past experiences of climate change; (2) self-reported climate-related emotions; (3) self-reported past and current impacts, anticipatory impacts, and vicarious experiences; (4) self-reported subclinical outcomes; (5) self-reported behavioural responses; and (6) demographics. A multi-stage, multi-stratified random probability sampling method will be used to obtain a sample representative of the Canadian population. We will use two different modes of recruitment: an addressed letter sent by postal mail or a telephone call (landlines and cellular). Population-weighted descriptive statistics, principal component analysis, and weighted multivariable regression will be used to analyse the data. The results of this survey will provide the first national prevalence estimates of subclinical mental health responses to climate change outcomes of people living in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".