MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6981773626

2016 Federal Legislative Review

2017· article· en· W6981773626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureWitnessAnimal rightsAnimal agricultureAnimal healthAnimal welfare
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto Pig Save and the Save Movement gained worldwide at­tention with the Pig Trial. The defense, with the help of a coali­tion of animal rights groups, was able to put animal agriculture on trial by focusing on the ethics, animal suffering, environ­ment, and health aspects of animal agriculture. Meanwhile, the Save Movement is growing exponentially with 166 groups in seventeen countries bearing witness to animals headed to a slaughterhouse in local communities.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0160.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.036

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→