MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898137989 · doi:10.1111/soru.12225

Situating Emotions in Social Practices: Empirical Insights from Animal Husbandry in the Cow‐Calf Industry

2018· article· en· W2898137989 on OpenAlex
Emilie M. Bassi, John R. Parkins, Ken J. Caine

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociologia Ruralis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGenome AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaGoddard Space Flight CenterGenome Canada
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)NarrativeAnimal husbandryAnimal welfareWelfareConsumption (sociology)Empirical researchNarrative inquirySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceAgricultureBiologyEpistemologyEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Meat production and consumption is hotly debated in many parts of the world, in part because of ongoing animal welfare concerns. Drawing on several contending positions about the role of human agency in social practices, coupled with a sociology of emotion, we empirically identify a range of perspectives on the role of emotions in social practices. Drawing on a narrative inquiry method with cow‐calf producers in Alberta, Canada, we seek to clarify how emotions can play a role in the evolution of farm animal care. Results suggest a narrative of ‘emotional agency’ where primary and secondary emotions are a catalyst for challenging, re‐directing, and changing norms associated with farm animal welfare.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.291 · 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