Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on our growing knowledge of animal cognition, this book provides a critical analysis of the use of animals in the legal regime and the practice of toxicity testing. Although animal abuse has become a major issue, animal testing remains largely in the shadows, even though it involves substantial cruelty. Toxicity testing, in particular, imposes considerable pain, suffering and ultimately death on those laboratory animals – often mice – chosen to demonstrate the characteristics of chemicals and their commercial potential. This book documents and critically analyzes the animal protection laws of the European Union, the United States and Canada. It not only examines the tests themselves and the suffering they inflict on animals but also exposes the failure of both the testing and the toxicity laws to effectively protect human health and the environment. Finally, the book takes up the potential of alternative non-animal testing methods to replace the current regimen and to reduce current damage to health and the environment. This book will be of interest to scholars and researchers in the fields of animal studies, environmental law and sociolegal studies, as well as activists and others with an interest in ethics and animal rights.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".