Towards Youth-Centred Planetary Health Education
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
This paper presents data and analyses from our Planetary Health Film Lab (PHFL) and its sister project the Youth Climate Report. Qualitative data include semi-structured interviews with youth and their educators and content analysis of films produced by young people (ages 19–25) from six countries (Australia, Columbia, Ecuador, Italy, India, Canada). The educative processes designed for the Planetary Health Film Lab are illustrative of our work to build the field of planetary health education that is with/for young people whose educative projects are mobilized in turn to educate wider audiences and for policy change. The analyses show how youth document and record planetary health concerns alongside responsive projects that are embedded in awareness of climate justice and their interconnected ecological systems. The qualitative content analyses of selected films resulted in three themes: (1) Anthropogenic footprints, (2) Ecological and climate justice, and (3) Collective local/global solutions. Data also illustrates how young people’s participation in educative film projects contribute to the education of others and address related intergenerational justice issues. Implications for the knowledge, ethics and practices of youth-centred planetary health education are discussed as they augment the Framework for Planetary Health. Youth are crucial but overlooked collaborators in redressing planetary health education, an error we begin to correct through transdisciplinary approaches with/for young people who could help define the field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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