Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines a political theory of interspecies mobility justice that examines why and how mobility justice should be extended to non-sapien persons. Interspecies mobility justice considers how some species’ freedom to move and dwell impinges and relies upon others’ diminished mobilities and displacement, and sets out to illuminate better relations among differentially mobile species. Integrating theories of mobility justice and interspecies justice, I argue mobility justice requires citizenship for domesticated animals, denizenship for liminal animals (those adapted to humans without being under their care) and sovereignty for wild animals. To flesh out these three assemblages of interspecies mobility justice, I present analytical vignettes that relate ethnographic observations of people cycling with dogs, crows and orcas to research on animals’ mobilities, evolutionary cognition and field observations from urban naturalists. These vignettes clarify moral obligations of interspecies mobility justice using dogs, crows and orcas as paradigmatic case studies. The article concludes by discussing the need to further develop interspecies mobility justice by including non-animal persons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".