MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Living Will Clause for Supporters of Animal Experimentation

2006· article· en· W2063734872 on OpenAlexaff
David Sztybel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Philosophy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association for Co-operative EducationSuncor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisfortuneDemocracySign (mathematics)Environmental ethicsSociologyPsychologyEpistemologyLaw and economicsPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people assume that invasive research on animals is justified because of its supposed benefits and because of the supposed mental inferiority of animals. However probably most people would be unwilling to sign a living will which consigns themselves to live biomedical experimentation if they ever, through misfortune, end up with a mental capacity equivalent to a laboratory animal. The benefits would be greater by far for medical science if living will signatories were to be used, and also the mental superiority boast would no longer apply. Ultimately, it is argued that invasive biomedical experiments would be unacceptable in a democratic society whose members are philosophically self-consistent.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.030
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0200.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhilosophySame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207