MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Killing the Enviropigs

2015· article· en· W2323647594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan L. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ethics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthical issuesEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLawSociologyEngineering ethicsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In spring 2012, after losing the main source of funding for its Enviropig project, the University of Guelph killed its last remaining Enviropigs. Or, as a university spokesperson put it, the pigs were "humanely euthanized." Through an engagement with this particular case, I examine the ethical implications of using the term euthanasia to describe the killing of perfectly healthy animals who were bred for research but are no longer needed for this purpose. Given the ethical shortcut that terms like euthanasia provide, I call on research institutions, and the institutions that regulate them, to attempt to justify the killing of these animals without recourse to such terms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.553
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.070 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EthicsSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207