Balancing the scales: Including under-represented herptile species in a One Health approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The One Health High-Level Expert Panel’s definition of One Health includes optimizing the health of people, animals (wild and domestic) and ecosystems. For many One Health practitioners, wildlife that can spread zoonoses are the focus, particularly if they can come in contact with people. However, ecosystem health is often best-indicated by less-encountered species, for instance, amphibians and reptiles. This review highlights how these taxa can benefit human health and well-being, including cultural significance, as well as their impact on plant, animal and environmental health. We highlight current challenges to the health of these species and the need to include them in the One Health Joint Action Plan. We conclude with a call to action for inclusion of amphibians and reptiles in a One Health approach.
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 | 0.069 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".