MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Climate Change, Landscape Fires, and Human Health: A Global Perspective

2024· article· en· W4390490082 on OpenAlexaff
Fay H. Johnston, Grant J. Williamson, Nicolás Borchers Arriagada, Sarah B. Henderson, David M. J. S. Bowman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease Control
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Climate changeHuman healthOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental planningHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlEnvironmental healthGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyMedicineComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landscape fires are an integral component of the Earth system and a feature of prehistoric, subsistence, and industrial economies. Specific spatiotemporal patterns of landscape fire occur in different locations around the world, shaped by the interactions between environmental and human drivers of fire activity. Seven distinct types of landscape fire emerge from these interactions: remote area fires, wildfire disasters, savanna fires, Indigenous burning, prescribed burning, agricultural burning, and deforestation fires. All can have substantial impacts on human health and well-being directly and indirectly through ( a ) exposure to heat flux (e.g., injuries and destructive impacts), ( b ) emissions (e.g., smoke-related health impacts), and ( c ) altered ecosystem functioning (e.g., biodiversity, amenity, water quality, and climate impacts). Minimizing the adverse effects of landscape fires on population health requires understanding how human and environmental influences on fire impacts can be modified through interventions targeted at individual, community, and regional levels.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Public HealthSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207