Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely assumed that laws governing dairy production include substantial protection of animals' interests-that in some way the state is regulating the treatment of farmed animals and protecting them against the worst excesses of their owners' selfinterest.In fact, across jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, the standards governing farmed animal protection are not established by elected lawmakers or appointed regulators, but are instead primarily defined by private, interested parties, including producers themselves.As scholars of animal law have noted, this has contributed to weak and ineffectual legal protection of the interests of farmed animals.The present study will focus on a distinct, though related, difficulty arising from the de facto or de jure delegation of standard-setting authority to animal industries.Not only does this delegation result in less stringent standards, but it also works to erode crucial public law values, such as transparency, accountability and impartiality.This limitation of public law values poses a deep structural threat to animal interests, especially in light of animals' particular dependence on public law for their protection.Animals are excluded from private law protections, and from direct access to conventional means of legal and political participation, leaving them without legal avenues to press their interests as individuals.Effective animal protection therefore requires that the human beings who advocate for animal interests have meaningful access to standard-setting processes.Such meaningful access is facilitated where public law values assure transparent, accountable and impartial decisionmaking.For this reason, the assignment of standard-setting authority to private producers, and the attendant diminution of public law values, is of special concern in the animal protection context.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 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".