After the Berger Blanc: A Comparative Approach to the Utilitarian Regulation of Municipal Animal Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2011, Radio-Canada aired an investigative report exposing the cruel treatment of domestic animals by workers at one of Montreal’s largest animal shelters. A private business, the Berger Blanc held the majority of municipal contracts for animal control services throughout Montreal. Following the widely-watched exposé, the regulation of domestic animal welfare rose to the top of the agenda both at Montreal’s City Hall and Quebec’s National Assembly, as citizens demanded a response to the jarring images of cruelty and neglect. The province responded, adopting a regulation to strengthen the legal protection of dogs and cats under Quebec’s Animal Health Protection Act— a regulation which has been criticized as ineffective and inadequate by animal welfare groups throughout the province. Similarly, Montreal’s City Hall announced steps to launch a municipal animal control service. And yet, progress is slow and many Montreal boroughs continue to renew their contracts with the Berger Blanc. This paper will review the theoretical, political and legal context surrounding the issue of domestic animals, and employ an animal welfarist (utilitarian) approach to examine the three traditional municipal animal control service models, namely the private for-profit model, the private non-profit model and the public model. In doing so, the paper will suggest that despite the municipal government’s stated financial priorities, the only solution to Montreal’s domestic animal situation—one which properly takes the equal interests of domestic animals into account—lies in a publicly-funded, municipally-run animal services department, similar to the model currently employed by the City of Calgary.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".