Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35268124›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Kinds of Harm: Animal Law Language from a Scientific Perspective.

Tomasz Pietrzykowski, Katarzyna Smilowska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tomasz PietrzykowskiResearch Centre for Public Policy and Regulatory Governance, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Silesia, 40-007 Katowice, Poland.
Katarzyna SmilowskaDepartment of Neurology, Regional Specialist Hospital im. Św. Barbary, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9167-1624

Funding

the Polish National Science Centre UMO-2017/27/B/HS5/00085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current language of animal welfare laws is inconsistent and unclear in the basic terms pertaining to animal sensations and potential harms. In the case of law, the exact language often plays an essential role in determining legal duties and establishing their scope. Thus, for further progress in animal law, a coherent and unified basic conceptual framework is needed. To establish such a framework, the relevant legal terminology should be discussed in a prescriptive rather than interpretive manner while drawing on the medical sciences. Here, we propose a way to clarify the relevant terms to prevent misconceptions and improve the consistency of animal law.

Indexed as

distressharmlanguagelawpainsuffering

Identifiers

PMID35268124
PMCPMC8908821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.