Comparison of the healing process in hot and cold brands applied to harbour seal pups (Phoca vitulina)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hot branding has been used for many years by researchers to identify seals from a long distance. In livestock, cold branding has been proposed as an alternative because it is thought to be less painful. The purpose of this study was to compare the healing process of hot and cold brands applied to harbour seal pups (Phoca vitulina). A total of 306 animals was branded with a unique set of four characters: three applied for 3–5 s with an iron heated to 500°C, and one applied for either 10 or 20 s with an iron frozen to –175°C. At three subsequent times over 10 weeks, 43, 41 and 51 animals, respectively, were recaptured, the macroscopic appearance of their brands recorded, and biopsies taken for microscopic examination. Cold brands had a faster healing rate than hot brands. However, they resulted in less destruction of hair follicles, and cold brands applied for 20 s caused more depigmentation. Regrowth of hair follicles could subsequently obscure brands, while depigmentation reduces the contrast between the brand and the surrounding fur. Cold brands applied for 20 s also caused more extensive deep vascular damage, which subsequently may have resulted in deeper wounds in some of these brands. Yet, macroscopically, other cold brands, or portions thereof, were almost invisible. On the basis of this short-term study, the technique of cold branding that we used in harbour seals does not appear to be as reliable as that of hot branding to provide permanent legible brands.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".