A steelman against the Bay-Area assumption that very large AI-lab-adjacent philanthropy will quickly become usable funding for AI safety and EA cause areas.
I don't think it still really should be considered a "steelman". It's more of a model and a dashboard/Calculator, although the initial prompts did emphasize this steel manning motivation
The reasoning goes that if there is always a high level of background risk to humanity, then we should expect to go extinct soon anyway, which means the importance of avoiding any one particular risk is not as valuable as it may seem. For more details see the full report here.
This seems rather intuitive to me, but it's asking a slightly different question than what the original phrasing might seem to imply.
I think the initial intuition that more risk means more value of reducing risk, comes from the natural idea that effort spent reducing a particular risk will reduce that risk proportionally. So, spending effort on reducing risks from car crashes, malaria in Africa, or heart disease, all else equal, we yield more value than spending comparable effort on reducing the risks of bear attacks. I guess this is the "importance" part of the ITN paradigm.
But of course, the benefit of reducing the risk of car crashes is lower if we are facing other impending doom. Let's say we see an asteroid coming toward the Earth, or the threat of incoming nuclear war is high.
5 why this matters6
tooltips being obscured above
Newest independent response: a low-cost counterpoint
again, make this folded by default
One additional written estimate is visible but not pooled
this is minor -- make this box folded by default
Andrew
this clump is hard to read here
DisciplineThe academic field or sub-discipline of the paper, as classified by the AI model. Used to filter by research methodology and domain expertise. All Fields ▾ AI & Data ScienceAnimal WelfareDevelopment & AgriculturalEconomicsEnvironmental & ClimateLabor, Education & HealthOtherPhilosophy & EthicsPolicy & GovernancePolitical Science & LawPsychology & BehavioralStats, Finance & Methods SourceHow the paper entered this dashboard. Source is a discovery route, not a publication venue, endorsement, or quality judgment.Unjournal database: imported from The Unjournal's existing evaluation and prioritization workflow.Targeted public-paper follow-up: an independently public paper or DOI found during a requested topic-focused search. It does not mean the author supplied or endorsed the score.Academic feeds: NBER, CEPR, and RePEc working-paper feeds; arXiv and SSRN preprints; OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar indexes.EA Forum: research linked from EA Forum posts.Research organizations: Anthropic, DeepMind, and selected AI governance or safety organizations.Legal sources: legal-scholarship searches covering OpenAlex Law, law reviews, and the Institute for Law & AI. All Sources ▾ AI Governance (arXiv)AI Safety OrgsANIMAL_LAWANIMAL_LAW_REVIEWAnthropic ResearchDeepMind ResearchEA ForumLaw & AI InstituteLaw reviewNBERNEP_LAWOpenAlexOpenAlex LawRePEcSSRNSSRN_LAWSemantic ScholarTargeted OpenAlex intakeTargeted public-paper follow-upUJ seedUnjournal databasearXiv Targeted intakeRequested, topic-focused additions outside the broad recurring scan. Use this to include all records, exclude deliberately oversampled batches, or inspect only one targeted run. Include allExclude targeted intakeOnly targeted intakeOnly: AI, global health, and development curation (3)Only: Animal-welfare focused intake (19)Only: Empirical conflict replication-game intake (14)Only: Large-N GCR and existential-risk quantitative evidence (6)Only: Transformative AI, global health, and wellbeing (16)Soil-invertebrate crux sweep (6 cruxes) Crux/PQFilter to papers that map to one or more Unjournal Pivotal Questions or community cruxes (from the cruxes explorer). "PQ match only" restricts to papers mapped to a Pivotal Question. All Has crux/PQ match PQ match only RecencyFilter papers by how recently they were released or last updated. Useful for focusing on the newest research that may benefit most from timely evaluation. Any time Last 30 days Last 3 months Last 6 months Last year Last 2 years Last 5 years
make it easier/more prominent to 'clear all filters'
5. Three problems that a better estimate of the exchange rate won't fix
wait -- I don't think that's logically correct. If indeed we have a good estimate of the exchange rate, isn't it, by default, embodying that these problems are in some sense solved?
3. What this is based on
second column in table below should be narrower, firrst one wider. Use the space more carefully (and make that a persistent pattern/skill)
vignette calibration
make the tooltips also footnotes to enable hypothesis comemnts on them. And provide sources/references
Preliminary — do not read Unreviewed working draft, 30 July 2026. Not for circulation, citation, or quotation.
"do not read" is too strong. Make more caveats instead ... it's a current working space, being continually adjusted. And it has not yet been reviewed by workshop participants or research contractors (something we aim to do soon)
2. Bottom line
we need more caveats on this. It has not yet been reviewed by workshop participants or research contractors (something we aim to do soon)
The decision this is about
"This decision is about"
A funder comparing a psychotherapy
link the 'canonical case' given in the belief elicitation form here.
Targeted intake provenance
These bits should probably be folded by default.
Optimized messaging shifts choices towards plant-based foodsource titleExact title resolved from the linked paper's bibliographic metadata; discovery-page anchor text and model output are not used as titles.
Where is the abstract here? I don't see it.
Strong near-term candidate for animal-welfare evaluation because it tests behaviorally relevant messaging around plant-b...
What's this text doing here? I don't see it at the top in the other entries.
2 ratings
Is there a way that someone could change their rating? It seems like every time I come to the page and rate it, it records separately.
Mar 23, 2026
What does the "monitor" button mean?
Decision Relevance
Maybe "Potential decision relevance"
abstract provenanceSource-supplied abstract wording; HTML entities and whitespace normalized. Not independently compared with the paper PDF.
This tooltip seems rather process-oriented and not particularly helpful for users of this page. You certainly don't need to give it every time, and I'm not quite sure what it means or how to interpret
Rate on a 0–100 percentile scale relative to all papers in our database (Strong Yes=top quintile, Strong No=bottom). Try to form your opinion before reading the AI discussion above. Discuss why you gave that rating.
This percentile scale instruction is not consistent with the negative-neutral-plus scale shown below. Let them give a percentile first, and if they don't want to do that, you can let them give the priority ratings with the negative-positive scale, or just save that for the quick raters.
2 ratings
Seems like it was double counted here. I rated it with the quick rate and then with the detailed rating. It doesn't seem quite right.
I put my name at the top. Why do I have to put it in every case here? That seems perhaps tedious or excessive
Rate (Team) Rate (Public) View Paper
Rate/discuss (not just 'rate')
Open the conflict shortlist
don't make this section take up so much vertical space, and don't make the confluct shortlist so prominent here
Jul 2, 2026
need to make it persistently updated
suggestions -- Elicit aPI could be useful
AI-assisted prioritization for Unjournal evaluation — Prototype, March 2026
should prominently show last tool update, last scan, and (tooltip or hidden) API costs. Also 'number of human ratings/raters'
This dashboard helps identify research of interest for Unjournal evaluation. Internal prioritization currently uses our Coda interface. (March 2026)
I don't like the persistent header
Early prototype (March 2026). Coverage and scoring depth will improve as we expand sources and incorporate human feedback. Scores are AI-generated suggestions to help identify candidates for evaluation.
Put most of this into a tooltip
What is The Unjournal? We commission and publish independent, public evaluations of research that can inform high-stakes global decisions. We focus on economics, quantitative social science, forecasting, and policy-relevant research—including development economics, global health, animal welfare, AI governance, climate policy, and catastrophic risks. Learn more →
make this a folding box ... with just 'What is The Unjournal cisible pre-fold'
A documented elicitation limitation.
Make this is a folding box
displayed submittable slider defaults, so some responses may be anchored or untouched.
Clarify this - the language here doesn't make it clear what you're talking about, and can't we just skip the ones where they did not move the slider?
Direct validation of the linear WELLBY against better-specified alternatives — per Benjamin, not yet done.
How would this be conducted - give at least a hint, perhaps in a tooltip?
would answer the question a
which is 'the question' ?
What would change this answer
"The answer" given is diffuse, hedged, and multipart. Which part of the answer would change because of these things?
evidence
Again, whenever you cite evidence, you should link or refer directly to it.
Do if you have budget or control an instrument
This discussion seems to ignore another point we have been covering in this conversation, namely the potential failure of cardinality of this scale. Shouldn't this also be mentioned?
Flag explicitly when a conclusion depends on the location of the neutral point.
This seems great, but it comes with not much explanation. This isn't well joined up.
Use directly measured life satisfaction wherever a trial reports it, in preference to a converted mental-health measure.
I'm missing a justification of this. Was this justified above, or is it a recommendation coming directly from one of the authors/participants?
nd publish sensitivity bounds
Give a little more hint as to how someone would publish sensitivity bounds or perhaps a link we're referencing explaining how to do this.
1. The decision this is about
This needs more background. You give a brief explanation of the relevance of the question, although more links would be helpful, but you haven't explained the context in a way that makes this page work by itself. What is this individual page meaning to do? How is it based on evidence coming out of our Pivotal question our evaluation and our workshop?
Ratios move even when coefficients do not
That's a confusing overstatement. For the ratios to move, the coefficients also have to move. I believe it's just that they're much more sensitive.
instruments
What do you mean by "instruments" here? I guess you're talking about the set of questions used to measure well-being, etc., such as the Cantrell ladder or a set of depression and anxiety questions? But I really don't understand the implication here. Yes, I see they overlap and they are not completely nested, but what's the relevance of that? You need to complete the argument, even if it means using more space, which you can be judicious with, using tool tips and folds.
SDs inherit the population you measured them in A standard deviation is a property of a sample, not of a person.
I don't completely understand what the implication of "a property of a sample, not a person" is. What's the relevance of that?
Mechanically, comparisons will tend to favour interventions run in more heterogeneous populations.
I don't see this, so obviously. Will these interventions not be more noisy in such populations, in line with the greater heterogeneity? But also, I don't even understand directionally what you're talking about here. If the population is homogenous, then there will be less underlying variation. If some intervention has a sort of unit-level effect, it will be recorded as being more impactful in more homogenous populations, not more heterogeneous populations. Consider this more carefully. Explain it better, including possible tool tips and folds for making the explanation complete, and also source this to and link a page or paper that makes this point explicitly.
2. Bottom line
You can, to the extent that this is indeed justified, keep this formulation without putting in all the references I mentioned below, as long as you give a major caveat and signpost that these are explained in sections below - which I wouldput hyperlinks to.
The reason for the SD step is data, not theory.
We write this in a more normal way, not as "not this but that."
income-doubling to lives-saved, lives-saved to DALYs — then backing out the remaining si
I don't completely see how this relates to the SD-SD method?
its conversion
"Arrived at it's WELLBY/DALY conversion"
Founders Pledge raised these questions with us through our Pivotal Questions programme;
Hyperlink this backgtound here.
3. What this is based on
Good to know what your sources are for this, but it's not linked narrowly enough that I can understand what is attributable to what: - what's attributable to evidence - what's attributable to careful arguments - what's only one person's claim, etc.
cheap fixes are known
That's a bold claim. I'm not sure how "cheap" these would be in practice. I think you should hedge this claim and provide evidence for it.
ny single global conversion factor therefore systematically mis-weights domains
I don't see how the "therefore" follows here. This is underexplained.
Disability weights top out around 0.3, while depression and anxiety show losses above a full life-satisfaction point.
Same comments here - you need to give sources for everything, but also I don't quite understand what it is you're talking about here. Ok, it's kind of understandable, but it needs a little bit better explanation. What are the "conditions" we're talking about, etc.?
The likely error is directional, not symmetric. Compression and ceiling effects both push toward overstating the wellbeing gains from mental-health interventions relative to physical ones. A conversion factor that is wrong in a known direction should not be treated as noise.
What's the epistemic basis for this - is this your own thinking? Is this something that was explicitly claimed in the workshop, reflecting a peer-reviewed paper etc? Again, we need to reference these things.
han a near-1:1 point estimate implies
You're not providing context here. Where is this near one-to-one point estimate that you're talking about coming from? (I know, but you should reference it and link it, etc., perhaps with tool tips with embedded hyperlinks, and.or folding boxes
Do not describe it as established.
Do not describe what? What is "it" referring to here?
and
and --> but
The SD-to-SD step is defensible as a working assumption, and it is nobody's preferred method — including its originators'. Keep using it; report it as an assumption; run sensitivity analysis. Do not describe it as established.
This is a recommendation without any evidence presented. It's not reasoned transparently. You need to justify this or explain that it will be justified below and link that.
The question funders ask us is not "is subjective wellbeing valid." It is: can I keep using this step, and how wrong might it make my ranking?
This is your AI. Not this, but that slop. Make it more like my own language and avoid using this bold all the time.
Founders Pledge's moral weights use it. Happier Lives Institute's cost-effectiveness work generates it. Anyone reading either inherits it.
Link citations/references to this, please.
Almost every such conversion in current use
We only have two listed. That seems like an overstatement to say "almost every"
one standard deviation of improvement on a depression or anxiety instrument as one standard deviation of improvement in life satisfaction
avoid this excess bolding
means
"that often means" -- not always
Feel free to comment on the things that "we are not testing" to help improve them
'gate' sounds strange here
Identify the fragile assumptionIn your preferred bottom-up TEA, which single assumption would break the headline result if it were wrong by one order of magnitude? Which interactions …
where did this (and the other questions ) come from? Tooltip the derivation, of course w/o identifying anyonw who wanted anonymity
workpapers
what are 'workpapers'? Also, this header takes up too much vertical screen
traceable draft calculations
'traceable draft calculations' -- this is not clear -- more normal language or tooltip definitions please
Stop and obtain specialist review
the tool should be able to do some of this, or at least provide advice? Wwhy not?
The PDF output is a draft field packet, not a filled official IRS PDF.
highish value if do-able ... but rather good if it jus tprovides instrutions on exactly what to imput
PDF/XLSX extraction and an AJ Bell-specific parser are not yet automated.
would dbe highish value, please ctnu
QEF, mark-to-market, purging elections, foreign-tax-credit allocation, and notional accumulation-unit determinations are not implemented.
let's implement those -- these seem high value
The calculator refuses to guess a missing rate or cumulative interest factor.
this warning is confusing -- what does it mean
Reset to evaluation lens Current to
why 'evaluation lens'?
Job-matching and recommendation systems affect labor-market frictions, unemployment duration, and match quality, all of which have major welfare and policy consequences.
But isn't this mostly relevant to rich country job markets? Is it reflective of an AI-impacted job market? Are recommended systems responsible for a large share of the job-match and productivity value?
Decision relevance
there should be a link amnd/or tooltip to the full description of each of these
Crux/PQ match update:
is this auto/updated?
API cost: not shown in this export
why not recover the API cost here as well as implied processing cost from headless runs
Human ratings visible here:
should we/can we reeasonably incoprporate Unjournal prioritization ratings for this haere? Need to check with the team to understand the terms under which those were given/shared. NB David Reinstein gives full permission to share/report any of his prioritization ratings, but would want to consider before releasing his discussion content in Coda.
Adjust these sliders to create your own priority score, then sort by Custom weights. This changes only your browser view; it does not change The Unjournal scorer.
are these reflecting global social value in the way we usually prefer?
Human ratings visible here:
"UJ historical" should contain human raitings, no?
The useful question now is not whether the old paper should be revived unchanged. It is what, if anything, is worth testing under current technology and policy.
another annoying AI dichotomy. Just list the thing that IS important
gument in an Essex Economics discussion paper and an unfinished theory project
That paper was related to the project, but it doesn't matter that it was "Essex economics", just say "discussion paper".
The strongest warning comes from take-up: Ofcom reports 532,000 UK social-tariff customers in June 2025, only 8.6% of a conservative proxy for eligible households.
what does this indicate? I don's see it as evidence of a lack of a welfare gain. Perhaps a friction (~transactions cost) or a stigma issue?
so "free redistribution" is too strong. The more defensible claim is narrower: this could create additional purchasing power for some low-income consumers with less public expe
this is AI-speak ... the not this buut that juxtaposition
lower pric
Maybe this missses the usual 'what's in it for the retailer'? and the answer is 'it helps them price discriminate by the (likely) single most indicative measure of willingness to pay -- the income (or adjusted income', helping them increase their profits
The OpportunityCard, ten years on
it seems a bit pretentious because 'the opportunity card' was never actually a thing, just an idea I had
::: {.callout-note collapse=“true”} ## Mo
rendering issue
Calibration anchors are a small set of real example papers that teach The Unjournal's AI prioritization scorer what “value of evaluation” looks like in each area — including the boundary cases where a good paper is not a good candidate. Each anchor's rating is the team's real prioritization rating; the proposed lesson is an AI inference about the calibration takeaway. Use this page to confirm or correct each rating and lesson, suggest new anchors, and track the discussion.
This anchoring page should allow people to specify the different dimensions of quality, that is, the different ratings.
And the form should be more quantitative rather than "too high, too low." -- or maybe I'm missing the point?
To be honest, I'm not sure what was intended by the question "not by the answer", "not a good anchor". ... What is the " lesson" here? That's confusing.
Research training
We should label 'what kind of research training' here. I'm not sure the right term ... social science, quantitative modeling of cost/benefit forecasting, etc., economics, statistics, etc.
genuinely
"I'd genuinely like" sounds like AI slop
decent evidence AI tutors teach content well
link/tooltip evidence
s a possible consolidation of things I already do at a smaller scale: modeling workshops on contested quantitative questions, Fermi-estimation and parameter-elicitation sessions, and supervising early-career research
The Fermi estimation session thing is a bit of an overstatement -- something we're considering running soon
PREDOC's
add hyperlinks to these, and tooltip explanations
Intensive research training
The proposal is more than just intensive research training. The idea is that it's outside of a university institution and provides more direct hands-on experience and one-to-one or small group feedback, sort of replacing grades, degrees, and accreditation it's proven work and personal recommendations.
For a few years I've had a half-formed idea for an intensive research-training program: a few weeks of courses, a supervised project, then a conference where the work actually gets read closely. I mostly kept it in my head — I think I've floated it to one or two people. My original sketch was a fairly conventional mix of statistics, data science, economics, and behavioral science, plus supervised research. What's changed my thinking is AI: less of the mechanical work you can now hand to a machine, more judgment and understanding what results actually mean. So I'm writing it up to see whether it holds together.
This takes up a bit too much space on the page.
Training researchers for the part AI can't do for you.
This looks too much like a marketing slogan. It's more of a question as to whether this is worthwhile and, if so, what direction to take it in.
Foie gras (luxury/unstructured)
consider a log scale or a 'discontinuity here -- with Foi Gras all the others appear minute
How to read each column: the conventional product's retail price; the cultivated cost the model delivers to retail (your biomass slider + scaffold for cuts + markup); their ratio R; and the estimated share of that product's own market cultivated would capture (not a share of all meat). Share-bar colour: green > 30%, amber 8–30%, red < 8%.
give some column headers instead
One caveat to this species-by-species framing (our own intuition, not in his model): especially early on, a cultivated “chicken” or “shrimp” product may be received as its own distinct food rather than competing head-to-head only with the conventional product it imitates, so cross-category substitution could matter more than a per-species contest implies.
"my" not "our" -- and make this a tootip
tated expert
(and already collected 10+)
What drives the answer.
I want to check this -- make it clear that this synthesis is your (Claude Opus atm) analysis.
On agreements: we draw on the same source literature and read it similarly. Humbird’s 2021 pessimism was driven mostly by amino-acid/media cost, which is not a hard thermodynamic constraint and which Pasitka’s 2024 empirical work (hydrolysate at $0.63/L) pushed down sharply. Both of us read this as suggesting cultivated meat likely lands a few-fold above conventional meat — not at parity, but not orders of magnitude off either.
I still don't want to suggest that I am 'reading this' in a way suggesting a particular conclusion!
$/kg →
make middle column narrower. Also less whitespace on the right within each column
Cost
Example hypothes.is comment. Flag @daaronr on any other comments to be sure I am notified
Share colour: green > 30%, amber 8–30%, red < 8%. Ordering across species is driven almost entirely by the price ratio R (cost fixed, conventional price varies), plus the per-tier authenticity offset — reproducing Pablo's inversion: cheap chicken and pork resist, expensive beef, seafood, and luxury foie gras are penetrable.
label this better -- what actually are the columns/outcomes here? And maybe put in whole shrimp and shrimp paste too
may capture little chicken or pork share
my intuitions -- at least in early stages, even if they see it as 'real meat' the chicken, fish, etc. imitating products may still be seen as distinct and not compete only with the product theory imitate
validates out-of-sample against plant-based milk
was it calibrated on this though?
and its 89% mainstream split,
clarify what this means
it fills the half we skip;
rephrase -- it's not necessarily 'half' -- there are other issues too
an ad hoc dependence structure
tooltip what this means
weak
language should be more tentative -- this is an AI judgement; it's not entirely credible to 'judge ourselves'
h caution
add to header -- "annotation tool"
price ratio R
what is "R" again?
His is the piece we have explicitly not built.
--> His work could be seen as a 'missing piece' for our analysis.
['the piece' suggests there is only one missing piece']
Both of us conclude
too strong -- we do not "conclude" anything
Our model
Explain more carefully ... we are not just a 'model' but also a calculator allowing you to provide different assumptions, and a template/example for future modelers
Takes cost as exogenous. Cost → retail price ratio → discrete-choice (logit) market share by species, product tier, and geography → diffusion over time.
make wider, use the space generated
and connect end-to-end:
could be connected
The two models are complementary halves of one pipeline
--> The models focus on different aspects -- Production cost (TEAs) and Demand-side
Precision fermentation and plant molecular farming will reduce growth factor costs substantially
Parentheses and tooltips should note how many people said/voted on these things
100% probability (CM_17) to this before 2036.
Tooltip -- Side note: We discourage forecasters/experts from expressing these "degenerate" probabilities, as they are somewhat implausible from a Bayesian point of view, and not easily integrated.
Before mapping disagreements, it helps to note what workshop participants broadly converged on. These are not fully settled — but they represent positions where the workshop did not surface active disagreement.
Shorten this paragraph. There's too much filler here.
The workshop participant group
Hyperlink and tooltip the list of actual participants from the workshop page
2–10× below
"2 - 10x below" is unclear. Do you mean "1/10 to 1/2 the price?"
A "Key questions for optimists" section will be added as input from more skeptical voices is gathered.
'we plan to add' ... italics not bold ... "as we gather"... Avoid using passive.
Talk: The Unjournal (Exeter)
presented at exeter, but slides are generic. And it's the slides not the 'talk' that we link
An interactive note
and ~microeconomic model
Modeling approach →
it's a proposed collaboration, not an 'approach'. the model sketch is at https://unjournal.github.io/cm_pq_modeling/ -- for CM -- you can link that too
Why several of these look rough.
remove sentence, put the tooltip on the previous bit
up and do the grant-writing.
this suggests we take up all ideas -- not the case. But I'll be the one doing the large majority grant-writing work, although their input is also welcomed and solicited
plenty
I mean, if they want to say more, that's good
A short snapshot of what we've built recently, and directions we could take with new funding. Made to give our team a sense of what's already underway — and an easy way to say what they'd like to work on next.
leave this out or make it a tooltip
Email us your idea →
slack is good too -- just dm me or post if you're ok sharing it more widely
round what you'd want to do
that's a bit too strong -- it's a key factor though
for The Unjournal
not 'for The Unjournal' -- more 'decision-relevant for global priorities'
Post or comment URL *
although this is mostly about EA Forum/LW, we should allow people to submit suggested cruxes here untied to posts if they (although links to further discussion is v helpful)
Cleanup mode
tooltip -- what exactly does this adjust?
Cadence
tooltip explanations. Needs more options (like 1x/fortnight) and maybe manual text-entry options
Meeting purpose, agenda, or decision
here the 'pre-filled text' should be empty, or an example. Otherwise it just adds clutter.
Also (separate fields) allow convener to ask questions/poll participants
Use after enough responses are in
have it email the createor (they should be able to enter their own email) when more than X responses are in (they can choose that, defaults to 4)
Shared Availability
probably needs more room on the page ... expanding leaves little room ot se eit
copying the participant link sends invitees to the response-only page.
i don't understand this sentence
oordinator return link
what is this? tooltip. Why is it needed here?
Meeting-room link
not sure this 'regular link' works -- please check
Offered start times ?
give more eas y options (or adjust based on a description given
Meeting duration
enable shorter meetings. could it work to just allow you to enter the number of minutes?
Candidate dates ?
I should be able to give a verbal description here and it will propogate. I should also be able to check against my Google calendar here (or at least The Unjournal's Gcal
Request ID
this seems to default to 'unjournal-management' -- ideally it should be auto-adjusted based on the poll title set above
Poll title
The text you enter in the boxes should be a lighter font than the headers, and maybe a serif font -- it looks like entering bold font here.
Set the meeting purpose, dates, times, and links here. Drafts save in this browser while you work. Copy or preview the participant link when the request looks right.
this should be a tooltip
Claim Highlighter
this is a dead link. What happened here?
Research Prioritization Dashboard
link the legal one separately (maybe a subfield here)
Complete Unjournal evaluations with guided metrics, 90% credible intervals, calibration practice, and multiple export formats (JSON, CSV, Markdown).
this links the academic evaluation form only -- also link the applied one
Evaluation Form
Separate the "Evaluation, assessment, meta-research tools" from the "Research, questions, and cruxes" databases
Interactive Tools
interactive tools and databases
Searchable database of explicit disagreements, uncertainties, and "what would change my mind" statements from EA Forum and LessWrong posts, to inform research prioritization.
put this further down
AI-assisted dashboard surfacing high-impact research candidates for Unjournal evaluation — papers discovered from multiple sources and scored for evaluation priority.
Actiony bullets work better here
Prototype
more than a prototype now
AW cruxes / Pivotal Questions
Don't call the EA forum list "pivotal questions." Just refer to them as cruxes.
Research database Browse candidate papers; filter to animal welfare and food systems. AW cruxes / Pivotal Question
Pivotal questions should probably have its own set of boxes.
https://coda.io/d/Unjournal-Public-Pages_ddIEzDONWdb/Cell-cultured-meat-PQ_su7KnL0o#_lu-eSUA3 and https://coda.io/d/Unjournal-Public-Pages_ddIEzDONWdb/Plant-based-substitution-PQ_su7lhgBI#_lu87soYb and https://coda.io/d/Unjournal-Public-Pages_ddIEzDONWdb/The-Unjournal-Blog-post-updates-and-opportunities_suAkrsSS#_luyuj6My should be incorporated as appropriate.
links
Maybe also link our https://info.unjournal.org/pivotal-questions.html page somewhere here.
What The Unjournal adds in animal welfare
Engages with animal welfare research
Cultivated-meat costs Techno-economic cruxes, cost trajectories, forecasts, and synthesis. Join / advise / evaluate Get involved, nominate evaluators, or join the broader Unjournal network.
This links the workshop with a range of resources.
Published AW evaluations Public Unjournal evaluations relevant to animal welfare and adjacent topics. Plant-based substitution PQ Demand-estimation evidence, operational questions, and workshop planning. Cultivated-meat costs Techno-economic cruxes, cost trajectories, forecasts, and synthesis. Join / advise / evaluate Get involved, nominate evaluators, or join the broader Unjournal network.
Make the published AW evaluations more prominent... These are evaluation packages, some with author responses. Perhaps the folding box could list and link this individual one.
See AW cruxes
I wouldn't make this one of the top links.
evaluations
Mention the evaluation packages first. ... Those should be perhaps the most prominent.
Concrete ask: Link the public outputs, suggest papers and speakers, forecast tournament questions, annotate pages with corrections, and point us to drafts or slides when authors are comfortable sharing them.
Rephrase this or get rid of it. It seems weird to have an ask like this on a public page.
Featured work and tools
There's quite some repetition on this page. Let's make it more concise. People will be overwhelmed here.
Animal-welfare economics has many high-value questions where evidence is thin, contested, or scattered across academic papers, industry reports, forecasts, and practitioner knowledge. Conventional journal review is often too slow or too detached from the decisions funders and policymakers face.
It's also difficult to get rigorous feedback and evaluation on animal welfare relevant work from the methodologically strongest, economics researchers, psychologists, etc. We provide an opportunity to directly connect and directly reach out to top mainstream academics
Find people and collaboration points
Here's the Get Involved page. https://www.unjournal.org/getting-involved and here's the Join Us form. https://coda.io/form/Join-the-Unjournal_dc3NLlpa-eq
Send a lead Suggest papers, drafts, speakers, evaluators, or pivotal research questions.
This is just an email box to contact us. Instead, why not share https://coda.io/form/Author-Submission-Form_dZ4MMytY7aI
For people who want to submit research and people who want to suggest research can do so here: https://uj-prioritization-prototype.netlify.app/
Research candidates Find animal-welfare relevant quantitative social science and economics research. AW cruxes EA Forum cruxes filtered to animal welfare and alt-protein topics. Animal Futures Tournament Forecast concrete animal-welfare, alt-protein, policy, and AI questions. Plant-based substitution Pivotal Question on demand estimation and substitution away from animal products.
This is actually linking the workshop page. (For an upcoming potential workshop )
Research candidates Find animal-welfare relevant quantitative social science and economics research.
Don't call this research candidates. Call it something like Research Database ... Note that they will need to select the correct filters to focus on animal welfare.
AW overview Short public framing of The Unjournal's animal-welfare evaluation work.
Instead of outlinking that page, which is basically a grant application summary, why not recap that somewhere within this document, perhaps in a folding box, and then link that instead
These are the most shareable animal-welfare economics links. The rest of the page adds context and routing.
This is too wordy and probably obvious.
Copy share blurb
Why would a user want to copy a share blurb?
Send research leads
This is underexplained, and this is just really a contact us form, so if you just want to contact us, put it there.
Animal welfare overview
You don't really need to share it as a grant here. We need to put it in a different format.
Live preview Collaborate
Live preview doesn't make sense for something that we're sharing around.
Unjournal tools and outputs for animal-welfare economics
Too much vertical space.
What The Unjournal does for animal-welfare research
This line is taking up too much vertical space. Let's make it a bit more efficient.
Pick a time and prepare calendar, Slack, and email drafts. 1. ReadCheck what the meeting is for and any linked context. 2. Mark timesClick individual slots, whole days, or whole time columns. 3. SubmitWait for the saved message before closing the page.
i don't understand 'prepare drafts' here ... does the app do that?
1. Describe
make the description tooltips
I'm available for Room: main Reach link ready: Phone People will get a one-click call button on your card.
Agent pre-plans calls too -- you can share your calendars and it makes suggested times/matches
I'm available for
Async voice prompts
tooltip what the point of htis is let people upvote or downvote responses ,and then sorted by this or in chronological order.
Preview my card Current general viewer preview. Group-specific previews can be added later. Visibility preview What people see Close This preview only shows the card for someone who is allowed to see you. It does not reveal future group visibility rules. Free now
it should automatically highlight the matches, e.g., if you're both up for a drive time call ... Tell you how many minutes you could have overlapping
Free
don't show yourself in the thingbelow
Discussion responses (open text)
make this a folding box/boxes
Mean: 13.5 $/kg · Geometric mean: $6.8/kg · n=8
Make the aggregation more prominent in each case -- aggregations first, and bold, perhaps a relevant plot, then (unfold to see ) individual statements and discussion.
By the way why is the geometric mean interesting here? Remind me and explain in a tooltip. And why not use it for the probabilities -- that's where I'm more used to seeing it
Interactive model: public test after selection into evaluation
Where is the 'pre-selection into evaluation' probability in this diagra (Po)
record
what does 'adverse record' mean below? I guess we are talking about the evaluation rating here?
A public commitment — and a signal. “I’m willing to have this evaluated openly.” Feedback now, a public signal now — journal path still open.
Can we have a 'separating equilibrium' or other image here. Let's focus this slide on the "willing to recieve and respond to public criticism signals research strength' part ... and then the 'immediate underdog benefit thing' is the next slide (which you can tease)
The Pivotal Questions project
use the space on this slide bette
runs
1st and second box ... thought bubbles or callouts (0-100 percentile relative to pool); Both suggestor and assessor writes a motivating explanation/discussion.
"Whole team votes" -- 5 point approval scale (strong/weak/neutral)
What does open (Unjournal) evaluation provide? Now: faster, useful feedback + a credible public signal, and useful inputs to practitioners and funders. Soon: it starts to carry career value. Eventually: it can replace much or all of what we ask the journal stamp to do. Which of these would actually help your work?
the text on this 'all green slide' is a bit hard to read. Make it more readable and clear.
outputs
prioritization and evaluation outputs