Bibliographic record
Abstract
After working for about ten years on environmental ethics, particularly on the meaning and the implications of ecological and biological integrity, I became convinced that its converse, ecological disintegrity should be viewed as an attack on life, a form of violence to natural systems' structure and function, hence, to all living things at the macro level, and an assault on human life, and on the natural function of human organisms at the micro level.Ongoing interaction with scientists, ecologists, biologists and epidemiologists informed my conclusions, eventually confirmed by a document produced by the WHO/ECEH Rome Office (Soskolne and Bertollini, 1999).This document, entitled "Ecological Integrity and Sustainable Development: Cornerstones of Public Health," was the product of a workshop convened by the Rome Office of the WHO, involving the scientists of the "Global Ecological Integrity Project" (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)) (1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999).It brought into focus the work of several years of research and numerous publications, making explicit the connection between disintegrity including various forms of pollution, and its causes, such as hazardous industrial practices, and in general, the results of overconsumption and of the elimination of natural systems.It also emphasized the resulting fatalities, human morbidity, and the alteration, often irreversible, of natural human functions.In so doing, it was foundational for the argument I propose in this work: breaches of environmental regulations, whether domestic or international, are ultimately to be viewed as breaches of human rights law.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.506 | 0.346 |
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".