Food security and emerging infectious disease: risk assessment and risk management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change, emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and food security create a dangerous nexus. Habitat interfaces, assumed to be efficient buffers, are being disrupted by human activities which in turn accelerate the movement of pathogens. EIDs threaten directly and indirectly availability and access to nutritious food, affecting global security and human health. In the next 70 years, food-secure and food-insecure countries will face EIDs driving increasingly unsustainable costs of production, predicted to exceed national and global gross domestic products. Our modern challenge is to transform this business as usual and embrace an alternative vision of the biosphere formalized in the Stockholm paradigm (SP). First, a pathogen-centric focus shifts our vision of risk space , determining how pathogens circulate in realized and potential fitness space. Risk space and pathogen exchange are always heightened at habitat interfaces. Second, apply the document-assess-monitor-act (DAMA) protocol developing strategic data for EID risk, to be translated, synthesized and broadcast as actionable information. Risk management is realized through targeted interventions focused around information exchanged among a community of scientists, policy practitioners of food and public health security and local populations. Ultimately, SP and DAMA protect human rights, supporting food security, access to nutritious food, health interventions and environmental integrity.
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 | 0.031 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".