MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196197042 · doi:10.1093/ilar/ilab026

An Introduction to Ethical Questions Around Animal Research

2019· article· en· W3196197042 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Shriver, Eric Hutchison

Bibliographic record

VenueILAR Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsScholarshipPrincipal (computer security)Research ethicsAnimal ethicsAnimal welfareAnimal testingSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsComputer scienceBiologyEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The principal investigator is an expert on the topic under investigation. The veterinarian is an expert in the health and wellness of an animal. But what, exactly, can ethicists add to discussions about animal research? This special issue of the ILAR Journal considers how contemporary ethics scholarship can be relevant to animal research. The articles were selected to highlight how clear thinking about values and the implications of those values can inform which research is conducted and how it is conducted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.021
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0130.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueILAR JournalSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207