Standards for Official Statistics on Climate-Health Interactions (SOSCHI): Extreme weather events due to climate change and mental health outcome indicators: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, extreme weather events due to climate change are having a harmful and broad range of impacts on mental health and wellbeing. National policy and decision makers require indicators to monitor the impact of extreme weather events on mental health. The Cochrane Planetary Health Thematic Group is a partner on the SOSCHI project and is working to develop syntheses of relevant indicators. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify which mental health impacts from extreme weather events due to climate change are being surveyed or reported in the literature. This is the protocol for the scoping review.
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 | 0.189 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.016 |
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".