Holy cows and dirty dogs : the influence of culture and religion on animal welfare in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
India is home to every sixth person in the world, some 30 million dogs and a quarter of the total world cattle population. A vast majority of Indians are Hindus, and even though the Hindu religion proclaims love, nurturing and worshipping of animals, sometimes the same religion constitutes an obstacle for animal welfare in practice. This paper investigates the significance of historic and religious symbols to the way animals are perceived in modern Indian society, as well as the different social factors which underlie attitudes to animals. The concept of karma, as well as that of good versus bad deaths, is probably the foundation of the general Hindu reluctance to euthanasia in any form. Although in theory all species are generally regarded as equal in Hinduism, in practice there seems to be a differentiation; for cultural, religious, medical and financial reasons. As will be exemplified with the Indian sacred cow, symbols may shape the law, but their meanings may also change depending on the legal and cultural context in which they are discussed. Some ways forward are offered to improve animal welfare in India, for the sake of the animals themselves, but also for the medical health and social status of India’s people, and for the global environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".