MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390368205 · doi:10.1186/s12915-023-01793-x

Animal welfare research is fascinating, ethical, and useful—but how can it be more rigorous?

2023· letter· en· W4390368205 on OpenAlexafffund
Georgia Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Biology · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRigourSentienceAnimal welfareAnimal ethicsEngineering ethicsBiologyConstruct (python library)Management scienceEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyComputer scienceEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scientific study of animal welfare supports evidence-based good animal care, its research contributing to guidelines and policies, helping to solve practical problems caused by animal stress, and raising fascinating questions about animal sentience and affective states. However, as for many branches of science (e.g. all those with replicability problems), the research rigour of welfare science could be improved. So, hoping to inspire methodologies with greater internal, external, and construct validity, here I outline 10 relevant papers and provide potential “journal club” discussion topics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.309
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.143 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207