Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of animal law is ubiquitously characterized as being split between proponents of ‘animal rights’ and ‘animal welfare.’ While rights advocates seek to end the legal classification of animals as ‘property’ (or pursue the related goal of establishing animals as legal ‘persons’), welfarists aim to improve animal lives within the property paradigm. The common wisdom that all legal approaches to animals are fundamentally split between rights and welfarism has worked to ossify categories of analysis and prevent more accurate and productive accounts of what truly divides and unites theorists within this increasingly diverse field. In place of this traditional assumption that one must be simply ‘for’ or ‘against’ the abolition of property status, I propose an alternative pair of axes around which we might more productively organize existing and future approaches to animal law. First, what do these various approaches take to be the linchpin of animals’ exploitation – the thing that, though central to the system, is changeable, such that, if changed, the whole system might change with it? Second, what do these approaches take to constitute the unchangeable bedrock of existing systems of animal exploitation – things that reform efforts must take as inevitable, for better or for worse? Changing our lens to focus on bedrock and linchpins invites more nuanced debate respecting the unique constellations of hope, despair, and pragmatism that in fact animate so much animal law scholarship. In a field characterized by transformative ambitions, the proposed analysis of linchpins and bedrock focuses our attention on differing accounts of change – what must change and what cannot.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.132 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".