Domestication - restriction of animal freedom? - a comment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Sir, Relative to Dr. Rollin’s commentary (Can Vet J 2009;50:132), he made some excellent points about societal ethics, however, he misspoke badly when including “…the selling of the animal for slaughter…” when no longer useful to the owner as an example of an eloquent disregard of animal welfare. Is well-managed, clean, properly inspected slaughtering of animals for human consumption an ethical violation of animal welfare? I am sure the animal welfare people feel pretty smug about forcing the horse slaughter industry out of the United States, the epitome of out-sourcing and free world trade, into Canada and Mexico. One would hope Dr. Rollin will read the article “Horse slaughter conditions in Mexico explored by AAEP group” (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009;234:584). The point is made there that those who oppose horse slaughter do not provide for the care of unwanted horses nor allocate any funding for the care. Who is to say that any given animal must be exempt from the food chain? How does it become an eloquent disregard in one species, and OK in another? Animal husbandry, all forms, requires as a necessary management tool, an end, or terminal, management program. If one terminal program is not to your liking, then offer another feasible one. You could ask all of us to be vegetarians, but that is about as unfeasible as banning horse slaughter. Including slaughter for human consumption with the likes of nerving, soring, drugging, and whipping is a stretch, comparable to the anthropomorphic demagoguery of some animal lovers, and I beg to differ.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.064 | 0.073 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".