MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389207515 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112397

Integrating a climate lens into the design of education programmes for health professionals

2023· article· en· W4389207515 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Chen, Denise Thomson, Julia Sharobim, Omolola Titilayo Alade, Thanya Pathirana

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)Health professionalsThrough-the-lens meteringMedical educationSociologyEngineering ethicsPublic relationsEngineeringPolitical scienceMedicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is the major public health crisis of this century. Extreme climate events lead to direct impacts on health systems. For example, increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits may result from exacerbated cardiorespiratory morbidity caused by extreme heat.1 2 Indirectly, climate change also leads to health system disruptions through impacts on hospital infrastructure and workforce burn-out.3 Globally, there is an increasing recognition of the important role that health systems must play to respond to the evolving impacts of climate change.4 In 2015, the WHO introduced an operational framework for building climate-resilient health systems, emphasising the role of the health workforce in guiding responses for transformational adaptation strategies.4

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207