Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reflections on the relationship between animals and humans can date back to ancient times. Many philosophers and thinkers ponder on animals and human-animal relationship, and present their perceptions of animal ethics, which exert great impact on their followers and influence people’s attitude towards animals. According to the extent of the recognition and realization of animals as well as interspecies relationship, the paper divides the development of animal ethics into three main stages. The first stage is full of anthropocentric prejudices against animals, according to which animals are deemed as inferior to human beings while their consciousness, minds, and emotion are denied. The second stage witnesses an awakening to animals’ sentience, consciousness, and feelings, a call for animals’ liberation, and a defense for animals’ rights. There’s increasing attention to animals’ living condition, pains, needs and wants, together with their value, esteem, moral agency, and ethical rights. The third stage attaches importance to interspecies interconnection and interaction. There’re more and more record of, researches into, and calls for human-animal interactions, in which humans’ attention to and care for animals are underscored. A dialogical interspecies ethics is advocated for cross-species interactions, which subverts the former anthropocentric and dualistic concept of human-animal relationship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".