Tackling climate change is a global medical community responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tackling climate change is a global medical community responsibilityClimate change is no longer a distant threat, but a pressing reality that is significantly affecting human health. 1 With 2023 marked as the hottest year on record, 2 the projections are dire: the direct health impacts of climate change are projected to take 250,000 lives annually by 2050. 3 From extreme heat to flash flooding, climate change will affect everything from water security and food production 4 to patterns of infectious disease.No nation is immune, but the impact will be felt more by some than others.In this escalating global health emergency, the medical community's collaborative action is vital.As physicians, it is our duty to create change within our health systems and advocate for our patients' health.Despite being separated by thousands of miles geographically and two hemispheres, the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) are closely united in tackling this issue.Their work should serve as a clarion call for health leaders worldwide.Physicians in Australasia have long advocated for climate health action.The RACP's extensive climate work 5 garners strong support and reflects its members' increasing concern about climate health impacts and the use and extraction of fossil fuels.The RACP has sought to bring health leaders together, establishing the Healthy Climate Future campaign, 6 which unites 13 medical colleges and numerous specialty societies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".