MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1961330828 · doi:10.26522/br.v12i1.326

How Happy is Your Meat? Confronting (Dis)connectedness in the ‘Alternative’ Meat Industry

2011· article· en· W1961330828 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathryn Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Brock Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisconnectionDenialPopularityMeat packing industrySocial connectednessBusinessMarketingPsychologyBiologyPolitical scienceFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise of ‘happy meat’ and support for small farmers has gained popularity in the alternative food movement in response to concerns about the industrialized meat industry. Looking at slaughter in the alternative meat movement, this article identifies three types of disconnectedness: socio-spatial, aesthetic, and connected. Socio-spatial disconnection is explored here through an analysis of the Mobile Slaughter Unit as a practice of slaughter alternative to industrial scale slaughter. This article uses alternative farms’ web marketing materials to explain aesthetic disconnection occurring in the alternative meat movement. Connected disconnection is understood through a brief analysis of a new phenomenon of ‘do-it-yourself’ slaughter. This article discusses how these three sites of disconnection represent a denial of the actual connections humans share with animals.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Brock ReviewSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207