Ethical Perspectives on Animals in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen a surge in studies of the history of attitudes toward animals, not least from a social, intellectual, and ethical perspective, as well as in relevant studies of early modern Europe. Yet, as Cecilia Muratori's and Burkhard Dohm's new collection of essays proves, there remains much to be said regarding this topic. In their introduction, the editors declare their wish to approach early modern attitudes toward animals without regarding the Cartesian view of animal automatism as a central point of interpretation. More importantly, they aim to address what they see as a lacuna in current scholarship, the lack of attention to the early modern ethical consideration of real animals, not just symbolic ones, and of any attempt to understand what 'animal ethics', to use a modern term, might have meant in the past. Consequently, a central theme of the articles in the book is the consideration of rationality and speech as criteria for inclusion in the realm of justice and how the possibility of this ethical outlook on animals developed in early modern thought. The editors' claim for originality may be somewhat overstated since scholars have for some time been discussing early modern ethical views of animals. Yet this does not detract from the quality and versatility of what is an important collection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".