MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467066128 · doi:10.1057/9781137373168_2

Animal Virtues, Values and Rights

2015· book-chapter· en· W2467066128 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Ratelle

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNobilitySubordination (linguistics)IconographyHuman sexualityPower (physics)FeelingGender studiesRomanceHuman sacrificeHistorySociologyArtEnvironmental ethicsAncient historyPolitical scienceArt historyPoliticsLiteratureLawPhilosophyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the nineteenth century, animal suffering was an appalling constant of both rural and urban landscapes, and one of the most visible forms of this suffering arose from the abuse visited upon the horses used for stagecoach or Hansom cab transport. An integral part of the social and economic structure of human society at this time, equines had also become ubiquitous as symbols and metaphors. Sarah Wintle (1994) notes that, from the seventeenth century onward, horses were used to articulate “ideas and feelings about such central human concerns as status and class, sexuality, and the body” (p. 4). In Romantic iconography, Robert Dingley (1997) observes, the horse is “at least as often the embodiment of untamed natural force as it is representative of subordination to human purpose” (p. 245). During the nineteenth century, horses often simultaneously embodied such human values as status, wealth, nobility and military power, while also functioning in a far less glorified sense as necessary brute labourers in manufacturing and as familiar workers on crowded, polluted urban streets. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207