Should environmental sustainability be a priority for the gastroenterology community?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable practice means living within our means and not compromising the health of the planet for future generations. We are not meeting this goal at present as evidenced by the breaking of several indicators of planetary health and ever-increasing global mean temperatures. The arguments in favour of environmental sustainability include our ethical obligations as healthcare providers not to harm patients. We know that the emissions from healthcare are damaging health, so it follows that we have an obligation to minimise them. There is also the issue of intergenerational justice, that is not living beyond our means and leaving the problems for the next generation to deal with. We have professional obligations of leadership and advocacy on this issue, and it makes good economic and management sense to reduce environmental damage. Finally, there is the question of self-interest. If we do not change the trajectory of global warming, we face an existential threat in the not-too-distant future. We currently lack data on how to most effectively reduce the environmental impact of digestive health practice and we even lack a clear vision of what sustainable care might look like. However, that is being remedied and in the meantime it should not stop us beginning to take action, which is urgently needed as the climate crisis continues to gather momentum.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".