Climate Change Policies and Social Inequalities in the Transport, Infrastructure and Health Sectors: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate action has been deemed as fundamental to counteract the impacts of rising global temperatures on health which will disproportionately affect low-income populations, racial and ethnic minorities, women, and other historically marginalized groups. Along with poverty reduction, inequality mitigation, gender equality promotion, and public health protection, climate action has been recognized as a fundamental goal for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, despite growing recognition of the need to align climate action with development goals, there is a knowledge gap regarding how the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies impacts social inequalities. To address this knowledge gap, this document proposes a scoping review protocol aimed at identifying and synthesizing research that examines the impacts of climate policies on inequalities at the subnational scales, within the transport, infrastructure and health. The objective of this review is to map existing evidence, identify conceptual and empirical gaps and inform policy strategies that promote climate action in line with values of social justice and equality.
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 | 0.132 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.011 |
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".