ReviewNature food2025
Semantic and philosophical approaches for advancing the identification and measurement of food waste.
Review in Nature food, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many global food-waste frameworks do not account for multiple concurrent factors, such as culture, time, context and the aims of the stakeholders. Using the semantic tools developed in the philosophical fields of analytic metaphysics and analytic ontology, we propose a framework to explore and document the conceptual nuances of food waste. By discussing food waste from the positions of substantivalism, adjectivalism and adverbialism, we account for the breadth of food-waste contexts to improve representation and communication in technical settings dealing with identification and measurement, such as report writing and policy development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40341241What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.