To meat or not to meat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are facing a pandemic: climate change. In order to sustain a future population with a healthy diet, we need drastic changes in our food systems. With the demand for change both in our eating behaviour and the food industry, this opinion article dives into a currently disputed food resource with regards to climate impact: meat. First, the importance of understanding the dynamic term ‘sustainability’ is stressed. We argue that an interdisciplinary approach, which encounters not only social, economic and environmental factors, but also historical and especially taste aspects, are essential to change the current behaviour, aspects which are often forgotten in the discussion about sustainability. In the light of taste, and in particular the liking hereof, we argue that ‘umamification’ should be part of the consideration in a sustainable food system, which could come from alternative protein sources, such as marine animals or using meat in small amounts as a seasoning rather than not eating meat at all. The sustainable taste should not be tasteless but should be even tastier in the future in order to create a sustainable food system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".