Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: Our planet is in a climate crisis driven largely by fossil fuel use. We continue to break global temperature records with this past July the hottest month ever. Hurricane Dorian was among the strongest hurricanes on record. Yet energy companies and their financial backers continue to increase fossil energy production ignoring the dire warnings from climate scientists and public health that this energy source is killing us and most must be left in the ground.1 As Cherrie,2 Young,3 and Smith4 note in their letters, fossil fuel extraction is not the same as tobacco. We agree; we never said it was. What we said is that policies of the fossil fuel extraction industry and those of the tobacco industry to sell their products and consciously deceive society ignoring the damages to health are practically identical. We also said that we have to make radical change in how we manage the resources on our fragile planet. Yes, as Cherrie,2 Young,3 and Smith4 note, we are all responsible for our energy use. We must have a rapid transition to renewable energy but accepting fossil energy monies for our education and research condones the industry’s behavior and perpetuates the crisis. Perhaps the most important difference between the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel extraction industry is not what Cherrie,2 Young,3 and Smith4 note, but rather the huge difference in economic and political power of these two industries. Notwithstanding the huge profits of the tobacco industry, it is a relatively small economic power compared to fossil fuel extraction.5 Despite decades of activity, public health actions against big tobacco have been only moderately successful in high-income countries and unsuccessful in middle- and low-income countries. This economic and political power underscores the huge challenges we face to change the planet’s current catastrophic situation in the face of an industry that is far more powerful than tobacco. We firmly believe in dialogue in the society, consensus approaches, and solutions that involve cooperation by all sectors, and we made this very clear in our commentary. Alternative viewpoints are indeed important, but such viewpoints are compromised when funded by an industry whose products and self-interest undermine the independence of the science. We cannot continue with business as usual. The letters by Cherrie,2 Young,3 and Smith4 are part of the old thinking similar to the discussion regarding tobacco that tried to deflect the responsibilities of the companies and the scientists they support. The old practice of accepting money from an industry that contributes mightily to the crisis is wrong. We are right, but that is not the issue. The issue is how do we make the changes required to save our planet. Manolis KogevinasBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal)Barcelona, Spain[email protected] Tim TakaroFaculty of Health SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityVancouver, BC, Canada
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,017 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».