The International Regulation of Animal Welfare and Conservation Issues through Standards Dealing with the Trapping of Wild Mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of laws at both national and international level dealing with the welfare of wild animals has been slow. In 1994 the European Community agreed a Regulation banning the use of leg-hold traps but import bans were postponed following the threat of legal challenge by the US and Canada under Gatt and WTO. The subsequent legal and policy history reveal important insights into the developments of international environmental standards where difficult ethical issues arise. The International Standards Organisation's attempts to devise agreed standards for humane trapping were frustrated by a consensus based approach and fundamental disagreement between interested parties. Their work was eventually confined to standards concerning trap testing methodology, thus avoiding difficult moral judgements and uncertainties. Eventually, negotiations between the European Community, Canada, the US, and the Russian Federation led in 1998 to two international agreements. These are the first such agreements to deal predominantly with the welfare of wild animals, but can still be criticised as being over concerned with the facilitation of trade.
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 | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".