MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386483985 · doi:10.3390/ani13182827

Ethics and Invertebrates: The Problem Is Us

2023· editorial· en· W4386483985 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Mather

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvertebrateSimple (philosophy)Marine invertebratesEnvironmental ethicsEcologyComputer scienceData scienceInternet privacyCognitive sciencePsychologyBiologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last few decades, science has begun to make great strides at understanding how varied, fascinating, and intelligent invertebrate animals are. Because they are poorly known, the invertebrates that make up about 98% of the animals on the planet have been overlooked. Because they are seen as both simple and unattractive, children and their teachers, as well as the general public, do not think they need care. Because until recently we did not know they can be both intelligent and sensitive-bees can learn from each other, butterflies can navigate huge distances, octopuses are smart, and lobsters can feel pain-we have to give them the consideration they deserve. This collection of papers should help us to see how the lives of invertebrates are tightly linked to ours, how they live, and what they need in terms of our consideration and care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207