Ethical veganism as nonreligion in <i>Mr J Casamitjana Costa v the League Against Cruel Sports</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2020, an employment tribunal in the United Kingdom decided that ethical veganism qualified for protection from discrimination as a philosophical belief under the UK’s Equality Act 2010. This article explores the reasoning behind this judgement, as presented in the preliminary hearing decision for Mr J Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports, to argue that ethical veganism in this context can be conceptualized as a form of nonreligion. This article uses a relational theory of nonreligion to demonstrate how ethical veganism in this case is constructed to be distinct from religious belief while also being conceptually entangled with religion. It contributes to emergent scholarship on nonreligion, and veganism and (non)religion, by demonstrating how a relational framework allows connections among these phenomena to be articulated and explored with greater depth. In addition, this article considers the diversity of ethical veganism as an identity and practice in relation to its legal construction as a philosophical belief. Attention is paid to the ways in which veganism as lived can intersect with religion, nonreligion and areligion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".