MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159319062 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63523-7_28

Does Justice Require De-extinction of the Heath Hen?

2021· book-chapter· en· W3159319062 on OpenAlex
Jennifer Welchman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational library of environmental, agricultural and food ethics/˜The œInternational library of environmental, agricultural and food ethics · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestitutionExtinction (optical mineralogy)Economic JusticeEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLawBiologyPhilosophyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is often argued that we “owe it” to species driven to extinction “to bring them back.” Can justice really require us to make restitution for anthropogenic extinctions? Can it require de-extinction? And if so, can justice require us to attempt the North American Heath Hen’s de-extinction? I will first review the types of de-extinction technologies currently available. I will then discuss the criteria used to determine when restitution is owed for injuries as well as the special challenges arising when (i) victims are wild animals and (ii) are extinct. After arguing that restitution may be due for some extinctions and that de-extinction would sometimes be an appropriate means, I apply these arguments to the case of the Heath Hen.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it