MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387849979 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2023-002187

Educating families about the impacts of wildfire smoke on children’s health: opportunities for healthcare professionals

2023· article· en· W4387849979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine E. Slavik, Rebecca Philipsborn, Ellen Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Paediatrics Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHealth professionalsHealth careSmokeEnvironmental healthNursingPsychologyMedicineGeographyPolitical scienceMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dramatic wildfire smoke season emerged in 2023.Chilean wildfire smoke blanketed communities across Chile and Argentina in February.In June, smoke covered parts of Scotland following fires in the Highlands while Canadian wildfires caused hazardous air conditions throughout North America.By August, damage from wildfires had broken multiple global records, devastating communities in Hawaii, the Canary Islands and the Mediterranean.The chance of adverse health events from wildfire smoke exposure increased even in populations previously considered less vulnerable.As trusted messengers, healthcare professionals are well positioned to advise parents about potential health consequences of wildfire smoke.Historically, paediatricians have not discussed such climate-related hazards during office visits. 1This absence of counselling may partially reflect paediatricians' selfperceived lack of knowledge about how to effectively communicate their harms.However, wildfire smoke is a growing global health hazard for children, and parents are increasingly turning to paediatricians for advice. 1 2 Children often spend more time outdoors than adults, breathe faster and take in more air relative to their body weight; their lungs are also still developing and maturing.Their nasal passages filter relatively less air pollution, allowing more particulate matter (PM) to penetrate deeper into their lungs. 2This is problematic because wildfire-smoke PM is more toxic than pollution from other sources (eg, traffic). 3Indeed, scientists continue to

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Paediatrics OpenSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207