The Political Landscape Surrounding Anti-Cruelty Legislation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, the federal government launched a consultation process, which pointed out that nothing significant had been done to change federal anti-cruelty laws in Canada since 1892. The consultation process concluded that among other concerns, outdated wording of the law has prevented the prosecution of many serious nonhuman animal abusers. Since 1999, there have been a number of failed amendments to the Criminal Code anti-cruelty provisions. The study examines the trajectory of the proposed changes since 1999 to the present, using official transcripts of Canadian parliamentary debates, and seeks to understand the politics of animal cruelty legislation in Canada. Using thematic analysis, this paper explores how resistance to the amendments is articulated and rationalized, as well as the grounds upon which proponents argue in favor of amending the anti-cruelty provisions. The study ultimately sheds light on the failure to bring 19th century Canadian criminal laws into the 21st century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".