Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37893995›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Listen to Us: Perceptions of Animal Voice and Agency.

Anja M Thomsen, William T Borrie, Kelly K Miller, Adam P A Cardilini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anja M ThomsenSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC 3125, Australia.
William T BorrieSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC 3125, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3788-5220
Kelly K MillerSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC 3125, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4360-6232
Adam P A CardiliniSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC 3125, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1032-3466
Deakin University · AU

Funding

Deakin University HDR Grants
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many contexts, the interests of nonhuman animals (hereafter "animals") are often overlooked or considered to be a lower priority than those of humans. While strong arguments exist for taking animal moral claims seriously, these largely go unheard due to dominant anthropocentric attitudes and beliefs. This study aimed to explore how animal interests might be best represented in the human world. We conducted interviews to investigate people's perceptions of what it means to speak for other animals and who can reliably represent animal interests. Using Grounded Theory analytical methods, we identified one major theme: "Animal voice", and its subthemes: "Animals do/do not have a voice", "Human language constructs realities and paradigms", and "Let animals speak". Our findings illustrate how human language constructs contribute to shaping the realities of animals by contextually defining them as voiceless. This has serious implications for animals, society, and the environment. Drawing parallels with the relevant literature, our results reflect calls for the social and political recognition of

Indexed as

animal communicationanimal representationanimal voice amplificationhuman–animal relationshipshuman language constructs and paradigmshuman perceptions

Identifiers

PMID37893995
PMCPMC10603673
OpenAlexW4387772561

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.