Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative analysis of online documents compiled from the North American Animal Liberation Press Office examines how Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activists in Canada, Mexico and the United States speak about their motivations, goals and role in the broader context of animal liberation and ecological crisis. As a clandestine, direct action, extremist movement, ALF activists are often labelled as violent, angry, misanthropic radicals and have been targeted by industry lobbyists, legislation, and law enforcement officials to suppress their activism. In this chapter, I demonstrate how activists perceive themselves as the hands of justice in a deeply unjust, damaged, and anthropocentric world. The ALF rightly perceives that humans are to blame for the ecological crisis, which is greatly exacerbated by intensive animal agriculture and the destruction of ecosystems for industrial, commercial and residential development. Yet, they do not seek to harm people, but rather to cause economic harm to animal industries in order to make it more difficult for them to profit from the use of animals. By engaging in vigilante justice, ALF activists pursue a broader goal of liberating all animals from captivity, violence and death, and destroying the industries and hierarchical structures that continue to exploit them at the cost of environmental destruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".