MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783076493 · doi:10.5604/01.3001.0010.7921

ANIMAL WELFARE AS A PUBLIC GOOD IN POLISH OPINION

2018· article· en· W2783076493 on OpenAlex
Sylwia Małażewska, Edyta Gajos

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueAnnals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal welfareWelfarePublic economicsAgriculturePublic opinionPublic goodQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsSample (material)Public interestBusinessDemographic economicsPolitical scienceMarket economyGeographyPoliticsBiologyMicroeconomicsLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic of public goods in agriculture has become a very important and widely discussed subject in recent years. The demand for public goods generated by agriculture results from the expectations of the whole society, and the goods themselves are considered as a part of public health. Accordingly, in this study an attempt was made to determine the importance of animal welfare, as an example of the public goods generated by agriculture, to the Polish citizens and its determinants. Empirical studies were conducted in the second quarter of 2017 on a representative sample of 500 Polish citizens. It was found that people in Poland generally rate animal welfare very highly (average score 88.43 on a scale of 0-100) and that there is a statistical difference in the assessment of the importance of animal welfare on grounds of interest in healthy food, the number of people in the household and sensitivity to the beauty of nature. Additionally, factors determining the importance of animal welfare include: consuming organic food, interest in culture, interest in fashion, sex, age and smoking.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.167 · 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