Tiere zur Schau stellen / Putting Animals on Display
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Die Begründungen von Zoos, warum sie Tiere halten und zur Schau stellen, haben sich über die Jahrhunderte stark gewandelt, von Erholung der Stadtbevölkerung über Forschung bis hin zu Artenschutz. Dem heute typischen, geografisch geordneten Berliner Zoo mit exotisierender Architektur ging ein taxonomisch geordneter Zoo voraus, der die Vollständigkeit der Ordnung weitaus bedeutsamer bewertete als die Qualität der Haltungsbedingungen. Tiere als Objekte? ist eine Online-Publikation von Wissenschaftler:innen des Museums für Naturkunde Berlin, des Berliner Zoos und der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, herausgegeben von Ina Heumann und Tahani Nadim. Die Publikation ist Teil des vom BMBF-geförderten Forschungsprojekts "Tiere als Objekte. Zoologische Gärten und Naturkundemuseum in Berlin, 1810 bis 2020". Zoos have greatly changed their justifications for keeping animals and putting them on display: from recreation for city dwellers to research and wildlife conservation. While now the Berlin Zoo’s layout follows a geographic order featuring exoticizing architecture, it used to be organised taxonomically, placing far more value on the completeness of its collection than on the quality of animal husbandry. Animals as Objects? is an online publication by researchers from the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, the Zoo Berlin, and the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, edited by Ina Heumann and Tahani Nadim. It was funded by the BMBF as part of the research project "Animals as Objects. Zoological Gardens and Natural History Museum in Berlin, 1810 to 2020".
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.115 |
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 it