{"id":"W2073976109","doi":"10.3390/ani3030907","title":"Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Animals","topic":"Animal testing and alternatives","field":"Veterinary","cited_by":25,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; International Foundation for Ethical Research","keywords":"Animal ethics; Process (computing); Authorization; Outcome (game theory); Quality (philosophy); Computer science; Management science; Risk analysis (engineering); Engineering ethics; Medicine; Political science; Engineering; Law","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch"],"category_scores_codex":[0.682741,0.002704422,0.004589359,0.02591053,0.00448037,0.01130705,0.003764494,0.002916151,0.007198714],"category_scores_gemma":[0.8549649,0.001679696,0.003812941,0.01690877,0.008717741,0.009486595,0.005798715,0.004128544,0.0006079713],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02695025,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04257216,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002909029,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004341168,"domain_scores_codex":[0.107041,0.7984037,0.04462863,0.005924756,0.04246723,0.001534651],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.02748389,0.8494769,0.04537404,0.01395135,0.06271198,0.001001868],"domain_codex":"methods","domain_gemma":"evaluation","domain_candidate":"evaluation","domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"systematic_review","study_design_scores_codex":[0.006393198,0.000681336,0.02967126,0.1582509,0.00940689,0.0008529226,0.08738521,0.004324733,0.002331086,0.158769,0.01561779,0.5263157],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.002309932,0.0128716,0.08630278,0.2416395,0.01144548,0.001216818,0.09266621,0.01824759,0.01208932,0.2379582,0.2818539,0.001398631],"study_design_candidate":"systematic_review","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1173754,0.1585702,0.4341294,0.02767536,0.008651426,0.192919,0.004220465,0.0005747734,0.055884],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4854405,0.02089478,0.3684783,0.00418969,0.001740275,0.1158368,0.0006584462,0.0002327105,0.002528486],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.317259,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3912369,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.4643124314746182,"score_gpt":0.5873805755821943,"score_spread":0.123068144107576,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}