The Long Road from Religious and Ethical Traditions to Welfare of Invertebrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethical behaviour tends to lead to the welfare consideration of animals, but much less so for invertebrates. Indigenous tradition often valued all animals as having an important role in life on the planet, a practical application of modern ecology. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition postulated 'man' as having dominion over all of Earth, resulting in anthropocentrism and careless practices. In contrast, the Buddhist/Hindu belief in rebirth leads to ahisma, or doing no harm. In the face of capitalist systems, practice does not necessarily follow these beliefs, especially in the 'shepherding' of domestic animals. Only Jainist beliefs value the lives of all invertebrates. Philosophers are often divorced from the physiological reality of the animals they muse about, and science's traditions of objectivity and the simplest possible explanation of behaviour led to ignorance of invertebrates' abilities. Ninety-seven percent of animals on the planet are invertebrates. We have a long way to go to provide moral standing and welfare consideration, which is consistent with the new information about the sentience of some of these animals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".