Advancing Planetary Health Through Interspecies Justice: A Rapid Review
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
Planetary health definitions are clear about advancing human well-being, aiming for the highest standard of health worldwide. Planetary health recognizes human health is dependent on natural systems; however, framing human health as the central consideration of planetary health may risk rendering invisible the non-human species that are central to the viability of ecosystem services and human survival. This review seeks to discover and describe opportunities for advancing discourses on planetary health justice through exploration of the interspecies justice literature. This rapid review of forty-three articles asks the following: how does health arise in interspecies justice literature and how can interspecies justice advance broader conceptualizations of justice in planetary health? Results suggest opportunities for epistemological expansion within planetary health to include consideration of other species, ecosystems, and relationships between them. Examining what health is for more-than-humans, reflecting on how we understand these interdependencies, and advocating for decolonizing planetary health study and practice are critical to growing planetary health justice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it