MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387611659 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0002474

Indigenous Peoples: Traditional knowledges, climate change, and health

2023· review· en· W4387611659 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Redvers, Paula Aubrey, Yuria Celidwen, Kyle X. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousClimate changeVulnerability (computing)GeographySustainabilityClimate justicePolitical sciencePopulation healthPopulationGlobeEconomic growthSocioeconomicsEnvironmental resource managementDevelopment economicsSociologyEnvironmental healthMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous Peoples around the globe make up approximately six percent of the global population, yet they sustainably care for around eighty percent of the world's remaining biodiversity. Despite continued political, economic, and racial marginalization, as well as some of the worst health inequities on the planet, Indigenous Peoples have worked hard to maintain their cultures and languages against all odds. Indigenous Peoples' close connections to land, water, and ecosystems, however, have placed them at increasing vulnerability from the effects of climate change. With this, the health risks from climate change have unique considerations within Indigenous Nations for both mitigation and adaptation responses that are largely unappreciated. This Indigenous narrative review will synthesis the current climate and health landscape of Indigenous Peoples at a global, high-level scale, including relevant international mechanisms and considerations for Indigenous Peoples' health. This Indigenous narrative review will also explore and reflect on the strengths of Indigenous traditional knowledges as it pertains to climate change and health.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.518
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.033 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations87
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207