Reframing human excreta management as part of food and farming systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognition of human excreta as a resource, rather than as waste, has led to the emergence of a range of new and innovative nutrient recovery solutions. Nevertheless, the management of human excreta remains largely rooted in current sanitation and wastewater management approaches, which often makes nutrient recovery an add-on to existing infrastructures. In this paper, we argue that framing human excreta management as a resource recovery challenge within waste management obscures important trade-offs. We explore the factors that would be brought to the fore by reframing human excreta management as part of food and farming systems. We find that such a reframing would accentuate (at least) six aspects of critical importance that are currently largely overlooked. Recognizing that the proposed framing may also have its limitations, we argue that it has the potential to better guide human excreta management towards long-term global food, soil, and nutrient security while reducing the risk of compromising other priorities related to human and environmental health.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it