The impact of animal welfare advertising on opposition to the Canadian seal hunt and willingness to boycott the Canadian seafood industry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to measure and compare the initial and carryover effects of a video advertisement developed by an animal welfare organization, namely Harpseals.org. The ad was designed to educate the public about an egregious act against wildlife (i.e., the Canadian seal hunt), increase opposition to this act, and recruit participation to boycott the industry (i.e., the Canadian seafood industry). After initial opposition to the egregious act had been measured, respondents were exposed to the ad, and subsequently asked again about their opposition to the seal hunt as well as their willingness to join the Canadian Seafood Boycott. About two months later, a follow-up study investigated whether the respondents' opposition to the seal hunt and their participation in the Canadian Seafood Boycott were still affected by the advertisement to which they had been exposed during the first contact. The results show that respondents' level of opposition to the seal hunt—even though it had somewhat leveled off in two months—was still significantly higher (42% higher) than before respondents had been exposed to the advertisement. The results further show that the single exposure to the ad increased boycott participation from 3.1% (as measured in December 2010) to 13.8% (as reported in February∕March 2011), an increase of 350%.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".