Including a human rights approach in the Global Plastics Treaty can ensure protection of people and the environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plastic pollution, once seen mainly as an ocean issue, is now understood as a threat across the entire life cycle of plastics – impacting climate, biodiversity and human health. Scientific evidence shows that every stage, from fossil fuel extraction to use to waste (mis)management, harms the environment and disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, violating basic human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water, information and a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The proposed Global Plastics Treaty should explicitly integrate human rights to strengthen its effectiveness. Doing so would align it with existing international agreements, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Aarhus Convention and the Escazú Agreement, reinforcing obligations to protect people from pollution. Hazardous chemicals in plastics, often hidden or underreported by industry, pose direct and indirect threats to human health and well-being. Recognizing the right to science and access to information is key for public participation and accountability. Many countries, including regional blocs and alliances, support a rights-based approach for the Global Plastics Treaty. Human rights can be embedded in all parts of the treaty, from its preamble to implementation mechanisms. This integration not only enhances environmental protection but also ensures social justice. Without such an approach, governments risk future legal challenges for failing to protect citizens from the harms of plastic pollution.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
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".