I asked GPT 5 -pro about the links between these , and it shared this, which looks to be correct to me, at least from my side, at least for the first list. I slightly paraphrasr/format the output below
[GPT]
Evaluated by The Unjournal → matching sections in Better for Animals
Rethink Priorities (2022): “Forecasts estimate limited cultured meat production through 2050” — Unjournal evaluation package (2025). Section match: Evidence Review: Alternative proteins Why it matches: Both assess the prospects and constraints for cultivated/alternative proteins (costs, adoption, near‑term pathways). Unjournal’s evaluators discuss TEAs, shifting costs, and framing choices; the PDF synthesizes impacts and price‑parity considerations. (forum.effectivealtruism.org)
Green, Smith & Mathur (2024): “Meaningfully reducing consumption of meat and animal products is an unsolved problem: A meta‑analysis” — Unjournal evals (2025). Section match: Corporate & institutional vegn outreach* (pp. 32–47), Social media campaigns & online ads (pp. 173–181), Vegn pledges* (pp. 187–194), and Books, documentaries/films & podcasts (pp. 7–14). Why it matches: The meta‑analysis synthesizes RCTs on meat‑reduction interventions; the PDF reviews the same intervention families, their effect sizes, and limitations. (The Unjournal)
Epperson & Gerster (2024): “Willful Ignorance and Moral Behavior” — Unjournal evaluation summary & two reviews (2024). Section match: Social media campaigns & online ads ; Media outreach & journalism Why it matches: The paper studies information avoidance and the impact of an animal‑advocacy video on consumption; the media/online sections discuss message framing, short‑lived effects, and pathways to behavior change. (The Unjournal)
Bruers (2023): “The animal welfare cost of meat” — Unjournal evaluations (2025). Section match: Research – Effective animal advocacy and Research – Farmed animal welfare. Why it matches: Methodological work on valuing animal welfare (WTP/WTA, interspecies comparisons); the Presearch sections highlight the need for credible measurement and decision‑relevant welfare research. (The Unjournal)
[DR: I’m slightly less confident in this second list below]
In the Unjournal Database/research we’re considering evaluating
“Cultured meat: A comparison of techno‑economic analyses” Section: Alternative proteins Notes: TEA synthesis & forecasting align directly with the assessment of cultivated/plant‑based options and price‑parity dynamics (incl. survey price sensitivity on p. 203).
“A survey on inter‑animal welfare comparisons” (working paper) Sections: Research – Farmed animal welfare (pp. 157–161); Research – Wild animal welfare (pp. 162–168). Notes: Exactly the methodological gap the report flags (measurement/aggregation across species and contexts).
“Interventions that influence animal‑product consumption: A meta‑review” Sections: Corporate & institutional vegn outreach* (pp. 32–47), Social media campaigns & online ads (pp. 173–181), Vegn pledges* (pp. 187–194). Notes: Closely parallels the intervention taxonomy and effect‑size discussions in those sections.
“Giving farm animals a name and a face (identifiable victim effect)” PDF sections: Media outreach & journalism (pp. 93–97); Social media campaigns & online ads (pp. 173–181); Celebrity/influencer outreach (p. 15). Notes: Messaging psychology and emotional appeals are treated as potentially stronger levers within media/online tactics.
“Concentration and Resilience in the US Meat Supply Chains” (NBER w29103) Sections (adjacent): Corporate outreach for welfare improvements (pp. 23–31) and Government outreach (pp. 64–74). Notes: The PDF focuses on welfare‑commitment supply‑chain policies and public‑policy levers, not industrial concentration per se—so this is adjacent, not a direct treatment.
I asked GPT 5 -pro about the links between these , and it shared this, which looks to be correct to me, at least from my side, at least for the first list. I slightly paraphrasr/format the output below
[GPT]
Evaluated by The Unjournal → matching sections in Better for Animals
Rethink Priorities (2022): “Forecasts estimate limited cultured meat production through 2050” — Unjournal evaluation package (2025).
Section match: Evidence Review: Alternative proteins
Why it matches: Both assess the prospects and constraints for cultivated/alternative proteins (costs, adoption, near‑term pathways). Unjournal’s evaluators discuss TEAs, shifting costs, and framing choices; the PDF synthesizes impacts and price‑parity considerations. (forum.effectivealtruism.org)
Green, Smith & Mathur (2024): “Meaningfully reducing consumption of meat and animal products is an unsolved problem: A meta‑analysis” — Unjournal evals (2025).
Section match: Corporate & institutional vegn outreach* (pp. 32–47), Social media campaigns & online ads (pp. 173–181), Vegn pledges* (pp. 187–194), and Books, documentaries/films & podcasts (pp. 7–14).
Why it matches: The meta‑analysis synthesizes RCTs on meat‑reduction interventions; the PDF reviews the same intervention families, their effect sizes, and limitations. (The Unjournal)
Epperson & Gerster (2024): “Willful Ignorance and Moral Behavior” — Unjournal evaluation summary & two reviews (2024).
Section match: Social media campaigns & online ads ; Media outreach & journalism
Why it matches: The paper studies information avoidance and the impact of an animal‑advocacy video on consumption; the media/online sections discuss message framing, short‑lived effects, and pathways to behavior change. (The Unjournal)
Bruers (2023): “The animal welfare cost of meat” — Unjournal evaluations (2025).
Section match: Research – Effective animal advocacy and Research – Farmed animal welfare.
Why it matches: Methodological work on valuing animal welfare (WTP/WTA, interspecies comparisons); the Presearch sections highlight the need for credible measurement and decision‑relevant welfare research. (The Unjournal)
[DR: I’m slightly less confident in this second list below]
In the Unjournal Database/research we’re considering evaluating
“Cultured meat: A comparison of techno‑economic analyses”
Section: Alternative proteins
Notes: TEA synthesis & forecasting align directly with the assessment of cultivated/plant‑based options and price‑parity dynamics (incl. survey price sensitivity on p. 203).
“A survey on inter‑animal welfare comparisons” (working paper)
Sections: Research – Farmed animal welfare (pp. 157–161); Research – Wild animal welfare (pp. 162–168).
Notes: Exactly the methodological gap the report flags (measurement/aggregation across species and contexts).
“Interventions that influence animal‑product consumption: A meta‑review”
Sections: Corporate & institutional vegn outreach* (pp. 32–47), Social media campaigns & online ads (pp. 173–181), Vegn pledges* (pp. 187–194).
Notes: Closely parallels the intervention taxonomy and effect‑size discussions in those sections.
“Giving farm animals a name and a face (identifiable victim effect)”
PDF sections: Media outreach & journalism (pp. 93–97); Social media campaigns & online ads (pp. 173–181); Celebrity/influencer outreach (p. 15).
Notes: Messaging psychology and emotional appeals are treated as potentially stronger levers within media/online tactics.
“Concentration and Resilience in the US Meat Supply Chains” (NBER w29103)
Sections (adjacent): Corporate outreach for welfare improvements (pp. 23–31) and Government outreach (pp. 64–74).
Notes: The PDF focuses on welfare‑commitment supply‑chain policies and public‑policy levers, not industrial concentration per se—so this is adjacent, not a direct treatment.