Bibliographic record
Abstract
Companion animals, or pets, play a very significant role in the lives of many humansvariously inspiring pleasure, invoking an ethic of care and responsibility, advancing psychological and physical well-being, promoting social engagement, and providing economic benefit, including for the veterinary profession, pet shops, and pet food and other industries.In Australia, as well as in comparable Western jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, there is a very high level of pet ownership. 1 In reflecting on the interaction between humans and animals more broadly, and in particular on the ways in which that interaction is legally constituted, the pervasiveness of pet ownership makes the human-companion animal relationship a natural starting point.Legal aspects of the human-companion animal relationship have been explored in some depth in international jurisdictions, especially the United States. 2 Animal law is still an emerging discipline in Australasia, 3 so that there is a more limited literature on companion animals and the law in an Australasian context.Research in Australasia has focussed on three key areas: sentencing in animal cruelty cases;
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".