MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392778622 · doi:10.3917/jibes.344.0057

L’alimentation entre éthique, science et innovation

2024· article· fr· W4392778622 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève J. Parent, Tom Ignacchiti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal international de bioéthique et d'éthique des sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (hereinafter “right to a healthy environment”) within the framework of a “food systems approach” and from the perspective of the three main functions of law in the transition to sustainable and equitable food systems (hereinafter “SAD”). The article aims to demonstrate that the right to a healthy environment is an indispensable right for achieving the transition to SADs through the building blocks of food systems, namely food supply chains, food environments and consumer behavior. First of all, the article notes that the right to a healthy environment has been at the heart of SAD since it was recognized as a human right by Resolution 48/13 of the Human Rights Council and Resolution 76/300 of the United Nations General Assembly. As well as underpinning the sustainability and equity of food systems, the right to a healthy environment is inseparable from the realization of other human rights, most notably the right to adequate food, itself at the heart of food systems. Secondly, the article argues that the operationalization of the right to a healthy environment by States would benefit from a “food systems approach” to ensure the transition to SADs. In this perspective, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a genuine vector for the development and adoption of legal and policy measures that improve the sustainability and equity of food systems, and the implementation of the CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition adopted in 2021.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.036
Scholarly communication0.0230.016
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal international de bioéthique et d'éthique des sciencesSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207