MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590955778

Charting the Growth of Animal Law in Education

2008· article· en· W1590955778 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Sankoff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacySubject (documents)Face (sociological concept)LawPolitical scienceLegal educationWishSociologySocial scienceLibrary scienceComputer sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1986, animal law courses have begun appearing in law faculties in the United States and abroad. The growth of these courses has been sudden and dramatic. Nonetheless, many in the academic community continue to regard these courses as fringe offerings, and professors who wish to teach them are often discouraged - formally or informally - from doing so. In this article, the author examines the growth of animal law courses worldwide, considering how the phenomena began, how far it has spread, and the impediments professors face to getting new courses up and running. He concludes that as an independent subject, animal law is beginning to attain significant legitimacy, as it is taught at nearly 40% of the law faculties across the United States, and this percentage has grown dramatically every year since the topic was first offered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207