MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411333830 · doi:10.3386/w33912

Wildfire, Smoke and Mental Health in Canada

2025· report· en· W4411333830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet Currie, Soodeh Saberian

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2025
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmokeMental healthEnvironmental healthEnvironmental sciencePsychologyGeographyMeteorologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most previous estimates of the effects of wildfire on mental health have focused on the impact of exposure to PM2.5, which often travels long distances.We break new ground by highlighting additional impacts of wildfires on mental health, including through evacuation orders, local costs of fires, and climate anxiety, which is proxied using news reports of distant fires.All these mechanisms affect mental health-related hospitalizations, with especially large impacts on hospitalizations for anxiety and substance abuse.Conditional on local air quality, wildfire events that draw national attention worsen the mental health of susceptible people, even when they live far away.Elderly people and those with pre-existing health conditions that make them more vulnerable are more strongly affected.Accounting for these additional mechanisms does little to diminish the estimated effect of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke, but raises the estimated impact of fires on mental health 75%, suggesting that increases in PM2.5 are not the only important mechanism.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic Research→Same topicUrban Green Space and Health→French-language works237,207→