Differences in Perceived Future Impacts of Climate Change on the Workforce Among Residents of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain industries will bear a disproportionate share of the burden of climate change. Climate change risk perceptions can impact workers’ mental health and well-being; increased climate change risk perceptions are also associated with more favourable adaptive attitudes. It is, therefore, important to understand whether climate risk perceptions differ across workers between industries. We conducted an online survey of British Columbians (16+) in 2021 using social media advertisements. Participants rated how likely they believed their industry (Natural Resources, Science, Art and Recreation, Education/Law/Government, Health, Management/Business, Manufacturing, Sales, Trades) would be affected by climate change (on a scale from “Very Unlikely” to “Very Likely”). Ordinal logistic regression examined the association between occupational category and perceived industry vulnerability, adjusting for socio-demographic factors. Among 877 participants, 66.1% of Natural Resources workers perceived it was very/somewhat likely that climate change would impact their industry; only those in Science (78.3%) and Art and Recreation (71.4%) occupations had higher percentages. In the adjusted model, compared to Natural Resources workers, respondents in other occupations, including those in Art and Recreation, Education/Law/Government, Management/Business, Manufacturing, Sales, and Trades, perceived significantly lower risk of climate change-related industry impacts. Industry-specific interventions are needed to increase awareness of and readiness for climate adaptation. Policymakers and industry leaders should prioritize sectoral differences when designing interventions to support climate resilience in the workforce.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".