MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411690471 · doi:10.1093/biosci/biaf080

The Geroscience Perspective on One Health

2025· article· en· W4411690471 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The One Health concept has been invoked to foster collaborations at the intersection of human, animal, and environmental health to address zoonotic disease risk. But the One Health concept is also helpful in framing and addressing the public health imperative to prevent and delay the onset of the chronic diseases of late life, to extend healthy life expectancy in ways that are sustainable and beneficial to animal and environmental health. This is an urgent global health imperative because healthy life expectancy is not increasing at the same pace as life expectancy, leading to more years being lived in poor health. Invoking once again Herter’s account of the role of imagination and idealism in medical science and his distinction between humanitarian and experimental science, this chapter advances the Geroscience Perspective on One Health, a framework that draws attention to the interdependence of healthy human aging and animal and environmental health by emphasizing the importance of pursuing nonpharmacological (environmental and lifestyle) and potential pharmacological (gerotherapeutics) interventions to increase healthspan. The book concludes by addressing the geroconservative concern that the experimental arm of rate control represents a type of moral hazard to the One Health concept.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.362 · 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