MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406949591 · doi:10.1177/08404704251316859

Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from the health sector in Canada: Mind the gap

2025· article· en· W4406949591 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jessica Nowlan, Fiona A. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasBusinessHealth sectorNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEnvironmental healthMedicineHealth servicesGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare is a surprisingly large contributor to climate change, responsible for a significant quantity of global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Global commitments to achieve "net zero" health systems, including by the federal government in Canada, suggest a growing need to understand and mobilize capacity for GHG emissions estimation across Canada's health sector. Our analysis highlights efforts by public sector healthcare organizations in Canada to estimate an increasingly broad scope of GHG emissions, building on longstanding efforts to report or reduce energy-related emissions from facilities. It also identifies why such efforts will not be sufficient. Developing capacity for routine system-wide greenhouse gas emissions estimation can help Canada's health systems to better understand their progress, including through international comparison. Yet emissions estimation is itself an investment, one that should not displace efforts to reduce the full scope of pollutants from the healthcare enterprise, and to build a truly sustainable health system.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207