MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396718905 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(24)00049-4

Community-serving research addressing climate change impacts on vector-borne diseases

2024· review· en· W4396718905 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis Fernando Chaves, Mariel D. Friberg, Mercedes Pascual, José E. Calzada, Shirley Luckhart, Luke Bergmann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanada Research ChairsNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsClimate changeEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementVector (molecular biology)BusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceMedicineEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impacts of climate change on vector-borne diseases are uneven across human populations. This pattern reflects the effect of changing environments on the biology of transmission, which is also modulated by social and other inequities. These disparities are also linked to research outcomes that could be translated into tools for transmission reduction, but are not necessarily actionable in the communities where transmission occurs. The transmission of vector-borne diseases could be averted by developing research that is both hypothesis-driven and community-serving for populations affected by climate change, where local communities interact as equal partners with scientists, developing and implementing research projects with the aim of improving community health. In this Personal View, we share five principles that have guided our research practice to serve the needs of communities affected by vector-borne diseases.

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.577
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.040 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207