Ecotourism, Animals and Ecocentrism: A Re-examination of the Billfish Debate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss the topic of who, or what, is deserving of moral consideration in nature as this applies to the emerging discourse on tourism, animals and ethics. The paper focuses primarily on deep green or ecocentric ethics, and more specifically, on how this perspective differs from other theories of environmental ethics—especially animal liberation—when it comes to the treatment of animals used for tourism. The debate on billfishing as ecotourism is resurrected for the purpose of explaining (i) why it is important to understand key differences between ecocentric and animal liberation ethics; and (ii) how both theories could have been used to better inform the billfishing debate that took place over a decade ago. The paper concludes with a call for the continued use of environmental ethics theory in clarifying whether certain human- animal practices should be viewed as ecotourism or not.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it