MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W66677053

Ethics, Animals and Science.

2002· article· en· W66677053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Blackwell, Tamara Keeley

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal ethicsAnimal welfareEngineering ethicsPerceptionPolitical sciencePsychologyEnvironmental ethicsLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This very comprehensive text is divided into 15 chapters, with topics ranging from “Exploring the moral maze” to “Cost-benefit — the balancing act.” The author promises to help the reader to ask the appeopriate questions when exploring issues of ethics, animals, and science, and he succeeds very well in his goal. The author does not offer answers to any of these questions. Instead he attempts to supply readers with the information that is necessary for them to explore and answer these questions on their own. According to the author, opinions on the ethical treatment of animals traditionally have been based on the needs of a society and that society's perceptions of other animals. As these perceptions have changed over time, so have concepts of animal ethics. The author describes how applied ethics for animal use has developed as the direct result of public concern for the welfare of animals. This concern by a public that is basically unfamiliar with such areas as scientific experimentation and modern agriculture has led to the development of committees designed to judge the ethics of animal use. Members of such committees particularly need a solid background in the philosophy of ethics and animal use. Comparisons are made in the text among the Dutch, British, Swedish, and Canadian systems for assessing the appropriateness of animal use. This section will be of very practical significance to individuals involved with committees on animal use. Decision diagrams and evaluations forms from the various countries are included for the reader to ponder and compare. They demonstrate an objective and reproducible set of criteria on which animal use decisions are evaluated by various committees in Europe and North America. This is one section of the text where the purely philosophical explorations of a subject take a backseat to practical, everyday decision making by animal use committees. Ethics, Animals, and Science provides an excellent source of information regarding ethics and the development of present day views on equality and morality, particularly as they apply to animals. The use of examples increases the understanding of the concepts involved and strengthens the arguments given. The text provides an interesting overview of the history and origin of the application of ethics to animal use. This book will be of particular interest to those readers with a strong interest in the ethics of animal use. It will also be of value to individuals involved with animal use or animal ethics committees. They should find value in both the philosophical sections of the book, as well as those sections comparing animal use regulations in different countries. The average veterinary practitioner, on the other hand, may find that most of the material applies only indirectly to private veterinary practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.010

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)→Same topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact→French-language works237,207→