MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393156815 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1324662

Climate change and health: rethinking public health messaging for wildfire smoke and extreme heat co-exposures

2024· review· en· W4393156815 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eric S. Coker, Susan Stone, Erin McTigue, Jiayun Yao, Emily Brigham, Michael Schwandt, Sarah B. Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Centre for Disease Control
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsPublic healthEnvironmental healthAgency (philosophy)Psychological interventionHazardBusinessClimate changeRisk assessmentMedicineEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceComputer securityNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing climate change crisis, public health agencies and practitioners must increasingly develop guidance documents addressing the public health risks and protective measures associated with multi-hazard events. Our Policy and Practice Review aims to assess current public health guidance and related messaging about co-exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat and recommend strengthened messaging to better protect people from these climate-sensitive hazards. We reviewed public health messaging published by governmental agencies between January 2013 and May 2023 in Canada and the United States. Publicly available resources were eligible if they discussed the co-occurrence of wildfire smoke and extreme heat and mentioned personal interventions (protective measures) to prevent exposure to either hazard. We reviewed local, regional, and national governmental agency messaging resources, such as online fact sheets and guidance documents. We assessed these resources according to four public health messaging themes, including (1) discussions around vulnerable groups and risk factors, (2) symptoms associated with these exposures, (3) health risks of each exposure individually, and (4) health risks from combined exposure. Additionally, we conducted a detailed assessment of current messaging about measures to mitigate exposure. We found 15 online public-facing resources that provided health messaging about co-exposure; however, only one discussed all four themes. We identified 21 distinct protective measures mentioned across the 15 resources. There is considerable variability and inconsistency regarding the types and level of detail across described protective measures. Of the identified 21 protective measures, nine may protect against both hazards simultaneously, suggesting opportunities to emphasize these particular messages to address both hazards together. More precise, complete, and coordinated public health messaging would protect against climate-sensitive health outcomes attributable to wildfire smoke and extreme heat co-exposures.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.525
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.088 · 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207