MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408732665 · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2025.103478

Weather shocks, infant mortality, and adaptation: Experimental evidence from Uganda

2025· article· en· W4408732665 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Martina Björkman Nyqvist, Tillmann von Carnap, Andrea Guariso, Jakob Svensson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Development Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Institute for Environmental StudiesRiksbankens JubileumsfondStanford Graduate School of EducationSvenska Handelsbankens ForskningsstiftelseChildren's Investment Fund Foundation
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Infant mortalityEconomicsGeographyDeveloping countryPsychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is increasing the intensity of extreme weather events. Health is a primary channel through which climate change affects welfare. Yet, estimates of the mitigating effects of health system strengthening are largely missing. We combine data from a randomized trial inducing variation in healthcare access with naturally-occurring variation in growing-season precipitation to study the adaptive impact of community healthcare in a low-income country setting. The risk of infant death increases following low growing-season rainfall, but access to community healthcare reduces this risk by 46 %. Using our estimates coupled with projections from climatological models implies even larger potential adaptive effects. • Can community health workers (CHW) strengthen the climate resilience of health systems? • Infant mortality increases after low-rainfall seasons, but not in villages randomly assigned to CHW. • Climate change may lead to more frequent and severe droughts, increasing CHW benefits. • Primary healthcare investments can mitigate adverse weather shocks' impacts on infant mortality.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Development EconomicsSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207