MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153008089 · doi:10.3138/jvme.32.4.505

Teaching Animal Welfare Science, Ethics, and Law to Veterinary Students in the United Kingdom

2005· article· en· W2153008089 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal welfareWelfareCurriculumLegislationSubject (documents)Veterinary medicineEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMedical educationMedicineLawEngineeringComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching veterinary students about animal welfare science, ethics, and law has been identified as a priority of the veterinary curriculum. Suggested content for such a course, the stage at which it should be taught, and possible methods of teaching and assessing the subject have been outlined. Critically, such a course needs to address the quantification of the impact of humans on animals (welfare science), the analysis of our moral obligations (welfare ethics), and knowledge of minimum welfare standards (welfare legislation). A mixture of both teaching methods and assessment techniques is needed to ensure that sufficient skills and knowledge and a deeper understanding are achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.240 · 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