An Evaluation of Portuguese Societal Opinion towards the Practice of Bullfighting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bullfighting is a controversial sport that continues to be legally permitted in a number of countries around the world, including Portugal. The spectacle has attracted significant attention from animal protectionist groups for many years because of concerns for animal distress, pain, and suffering during the fights. While there has been strong support for the sport in Portugal in the past, there is a need to study social profiles regarding the acceptability of this sport before a case can be made for changes in regional and national legislation. In this study, Portuguese attendance patterns at bullfights were assessed in addition to public opinions on welfare and ethical aspects of bullfighting, based on demographic variables. Study participants (n = 8248) were largely recruited through Portuguese social media channels (respondents may not be representative of the Portuguese population). Questionnaire data were evaluated by means of frequency tables, multiple correspondence analyses, and a two-step cluster analysis. Most respondents had a negative opinion about bullfighting and perceived that bullfighting had no positive impact on the country. However, while most respondents thought that the bull suffered during bullfighting, the opinion regarding banning bullfighting was far from unanimous. Based on the demographic analysis, the profile of individuals with more favorable responses towards bullfighting were men > 65 years old, of Roman Catholic faith, of low- or high-income levels, from more rural areas of Portugal. Somewhat surprisingly, there was a tendency to favor bullfighting amongst veterinary professionals. We conclude that there were still large pockets of individuals who desire to maintain the practice of traditional bullfighting within Portuguese society, despite recognition of animal suffering during the event.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".