MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411585675 · doi:10.29173/alr2833

Menaces to Society: A Posthhumanist Rethinking of Canine Capital Punishment in Ontario

2025· article· en· W4411585675 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Daniel Dylan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital punishmentPunishment (psychology)CriminologyCapital (architecture)Law and economicsSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a critical analysis of Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA), focusing on its ethical and legal shortcomings. First, it highlights that DOLA permits courts to order the destruction of dogs deemed dangerous, a practice compared to capital punishment — which is something that has been abolished for humans in Canada. Second, it contends that dogs are often punished for actions that stem from human negligence, lack of training, or provocation, yet receive no legal representation or procedural fairness. Third, the critique underscores the speciesism inherent in the law, which treats dogs as property rather than as sentient beings. Finally, it proposes reform through alternatives such as provincially funded rehabilitation sanctuaries, aiming to promote a more compassionate and just legal framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207