MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402769449 · doi:10.1002/sd.3201

The effect of extreme weather events on the frequency of child marriage: A systematic review of the evidence

2024· review· en· W4402769449 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Palmer, Aïché Danioko, Alissa Koski

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Development · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsExtreme weatherClimatologyEnvironmental scienceClimate changeBiologyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Child marriage is considered a human rights violation, and its elimination is an explicit target of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. However, there is growing concern that climate change may be threatening efforts to eliminate child marriage. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise quantitative research on the relationship between climate change and child marriage and assess the risk of bias across these studies. We identified 18 studies from an interdisciplinary range of databases. Several studies found that child marriage was correlated with droughts and floods. However, because of the high risk of bias across studies, differences in the vulnerability of the populations studied, and differences in the definitions of extreme weather used, we are unable to draw broad conclusions about whether extreme weather events increase or decrease the rate of child marriage. We discuss common biases across studies and provide suggestions for improving the strength of evidence on this topic.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable DevelopmentSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207