Exploring the nexus: Comparing and aligning Planetary Health, One Health, and EcoHealth
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 interconnectedness between humans and ecosystems highlights the need to protect ecosystems for the well-being of humans and the environment. This has led to the emergence of holistic and interdisciplinary concepts like Planetary Health, One Health, and EcoHealth. There is a growing interest in the differences and implementation of these concepts, including their founders, fundamental questions answered, focus, global distribution of studies, and alignment. This study addresses these issues to facilitate coordinated health interventions for people and ecosystems. Using electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest) and conducting a systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), this paper compares the concepts of Planetary Health, One Health, and EcoHealth, providing a comprehensive overview of the findings and insights by examining each field's advocacy, conceptual application, and implementation levels and exploring the contributions of influential individuals and organizations. The results highlight each concept's global relation to applicability, challenges, and opportunities for further advancement. The study concludes by emphasizing the shared goals and interconnections among these fields in addressing complex health issues at the nexus of human health, environmental health, and ecosystem well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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