MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408521666 · doi:10.1086/734073

Entangled Extinction: Endangered Elephants and Extinct Mammoth Ivory in the Nineteenth and Twenty-First Centuries

2025· article· en· W4408521666 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammothEndangered speciesExtinction (optical mineralogy)ArchaeologyGeographyExtinct speciesHistoryEcologyPaleontologyBiologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses two moments from the history of ivory to examine the shared histories of mammoths and elephants. The first came in the late nineteenth century, when mammoth ivory was proposed as a substitute for elephant ivory, in recognition of the massive toll the ivory trade was taking on African elephant populations. The second arrived in 2019 when an ultimately unsuccessful proposal to include extinct mammoths came before the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna as a means of protecting endangered elephants. These moments show how the categories of “endangered” and “extinct” share a complex, entangled history. In doing so, these moments demonstrate that animals wield a presence capable of shaping events and challenge conventional assumptions about the linear temporalities of endangerment and extinction.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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