A theory-based approach to designing interventions for Planetary Health
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
The current existential crises crystallize an urgent need for us all to contribute to meeting international environmental and social commitments. The message is clear: we need to take action. However, one of the challenges for decision-makers leading the transition is the dearth of practical tools and approaches available. Even in our field, evaluations are still based on practices which systematically overlook important determinants of human health, neglecting what matters most for our societies to thrive. This article aims to build on existing knowledge of program theories, theories of change, and theory-based evaluations to create a practical approach to designing interventions, while taking into account human and natural systems: what is referred to as evaluating for Planetary Health. A key purpose is to explore how we can conceptualize and elaborate interventions, taking into account their implications for Planetary Health, to suggest improvements or alternatives to existing programs, projects, or policies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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