Sex and Gender Influences on the Impacts of Disasters: A Rapid Review of Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both sex-related factors and gender-related factors affect the immediate and long term mental and physical health impacts of disasters, including those resulting from public health emergencies, climate-related events, and naturally occurring phenomena. These include sex-specific biological, physiological and genetic processes, mechanisms underlying reproduction, disease outcomes, and stress, immune, and trauma responses. Gendered factors such as roles, relations, identity, and institutional policies that have an impact on caregiving, occupation, gender-based violence, and access to healthcare, also influence the impacts of disasters and emergencies. Sex/gender factors interact with a range of social determinants to affect the equitability of impacts. A rapid review was conducted to examine evidence from Australia, Canada, countries from the European Union, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA) on the influence of sex- and gender-related factors in the context of disasters, such as COVID-19, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires. This article describes and categorizes this evidence with attention to real-world impacts of the interactions between sex, gender, and other equity related factors. Broad considerations for improving research and practices to support more sex and gender research in this area and ultimately, to improve emergency and disaster management, are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".