MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052280136

Sacrifice or Salvation: How can Animal Lives be Spared and Human Health Improved by Toxics Reform?

2023· other· en· W7052280136 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)ViewpointsHuman healthAnimal testingAnimal welfareAnimal ethicsMoral obligationSacrificePublic healthAnthropocentrism
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation investigates the complexities of the entwined relations between animal cognition, the use of animals in toxicity testing, and the proliferation and impacts of harmful chemicals in our society. It asks how, in light of the most current research on animal sentience and the ethics of responsibility, a reorientation of chemical testing at a theoretical, ethical and practical level could spare animal suffering and improve human health outcomes. Its starting point is the unfolding scientific research on animal cognition, and the consequent implications for reconsidering the ethical relationships, historically established and currently assumed, between human and non-human animals. The central issue, which infuses this dissertation, is whether humans are obliged by this knowledge to expand our moral arena to encompass animals, to acknowledge their entitlement not to be used for toxicity experimentation, and the implications of such an entitlement for the future use of animals in toxicity testing. 
\nThe work is based on a social constructivist process centred on the multiple facets of toxicity testing – the philosophical viewpoints of those who have expressed concern for the well-being of animals, governments’ animal protection laws that fail to spare animals from painful experimentation, toxics laws that promote the use of animals in toxicity tests, the pain and suffering of the tests themselves, the championing of the mouse as the favoured animal for experimentation, and the limitations and failure of toxicity testing itself to safeguard public health and the environment from widespread contamination. In addition, this examination of toxicity testing looks at the potential differences between advocates of expanded testing of toxic chemicals and animal advocates concerned about the implications of expanded testing for the increased use of animals. Finally, building on qualitative methods for assessing the current state of knowledge regarding the use of animals in toxicity testing, this dissertation evaluates how this system could be redrawn to both spare animals and better gauge the toxicity of chemicals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207