Personal Reflections on Being a Postcolonial Feminist Animal Law Professor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author reflects on her experiences in the field of animal law. A recurring theme throughout the Article is that the author’s struggle to see herself being part of the animal law at all. This is because mainstream animal law writing has tended to take a liberal legal approach, while the author has focused her work around concepts of intersectionality, feminist, and postcolonial theory in a field she has self-described as “Philosophy, Critical Theory, and Animal Ethics.” Consistent with her intersectional approach, the author highlights how her experience being Canadian, being female, and being ‘radicalized’ have all intersected to shape her experiences and perceptions working in animal law. Her conclusion is that, fundamentally, the animal law movement is a women’s movement, given it is women who predominate in the membership and, as such, the success and future of animal law “depend on whether women’s voices on behalf of animals will be listened to and respected.”
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".