The Human Perspective in Consumer Ethics and Animal Welfare Issues: Envisioning a Future for Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal welfare has been a subject of interest for the European Union since the 1970s, with the definition of animal protection guidelines during international transport, on farms and for slaughter. However, the Legislator’s concern found its highest expression in the Animal Welfare Protocol of the Treaty of Amsterdam, where animals are defined as sentient beings, therefore worthy of attention in the policies developed by the European Union and its Member States. Nowadays, the interpretation of the animal welfare concept as an element that contributes to increasing profitability is also integrated by respect for the animal’s feelings and, consequently, the related different biological manifestations. Food scandals and diseases, on the one hand, and the emergence of a new approach to consumer ethics, on the other, have also strongly sensitized the European population about the importance of protecting animal welfare. Based on the above considerations, this study provides a framework to understand whether animal welfare should merely be considered as a product of EU strategies dedicated to the economic and competitive performance of agricultural and agro-industrial enterprises or whether it can also be assessed as a useful tool to minimize the environmental impact, through breeding practices and food habits, and therefore encourage more sustainable development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".