Institutional Training Programs for Research Personnel Conducted by Laboratory-Animal Veterinarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research institutions are required by federal law and national standards to ensure that individuals involved in animal research are appropriately trained in techniques and procedures used on animals. Meeting these requirements necessitates the support of institutional authorities; policies for the documentation and enforcement of training; resources to support and provide training programs; and high-quality, effective educational material. Because of their expertise, laboratory-animal veterinarians play an essential role in the design, implementation, and provision of educational programs for faculty, staff, and students in biomedical research. At large research institutions, provision of a training program for animal care and use personnel can be challenging because of the animal-research enterprise's size and scope. At the University of Michigan (UM), approximately 3,500 individuals have direct contact with animals used in research. We describe a comprehensive educational program for animal care and use personnel designed and provided by laboratory-animal veterinarians at UM and discuss the challenges associated with its implementation.
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 | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.026 |
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".