Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.017 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".