Comparison of CO2 versus mixed CO2:Argon Gas at Different Flow Rates Using the Smart Box Euthanasia Device as anEffective Method of Piglet Euthanasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and response of weaned piglets to 100% CO2 gas relative to a 50:50 CO2:Argon gas mixture as an effective tool for euthanasia. A total of 180 piglets, BW 4.6 ± 0.7 kg, were utilized. Piglets were 16 to 24 days of age. Two gas mixtures (100% CO2 and 50:50 CO2:Argon) and 4 flow rates (slow, medium, fast, and prefill; 20%, 35%, 50%, and prefill with 20%, chamber volume per minute,respectively) were examined. Two piglets were placed in a modified Smartbox™ (Euthanex Corp, Palmer, PA)chamber, in which the lid and one side are composed of clear plastic to facilitate behavior observations. Piglets were scored using direct observation for latency to perform three behaviors associated with insensibility: loss of posture, last movement and gasping. Open mouth breathing occurred prior to insensibility and was used as an indicator of distress. The CO2:Argon gas mixture and slow flow rates prolonged the duration of insensibility, as measured by last movement and did not confer advantages for measures of distress.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".