Carbon dioxide, but not isoflurane, elicits ultrasonic vocalizations in female rats
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gradual filling of a chamber with carbon dioxide is currently listed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines as a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia for rats. Behavioural evidence suggests, however, that exposure to carbon dioxide gas is aversive. Isoflurane is less aversive than carbon dioxide and may be a viable alternative, though objective data are lacking for the period leading up to loss of consciousness. It has been shown that during negative states, such as pain and distress, rats produce ultrasonic vocalizations. The objective of this study was to detect ultrasonic vocalizations during exposure to carbon dioxide gas or isoflurane as an indicator of a negative state. Specialized recording equipment, with a frequency detection range of 10 to 200 kHz, was used to register these calls during administration of each agent. Nine female Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to either carbon dioxide or isoflurane on two different occasions. All rats vocalized in the ultrasonic range (30 to 70 kHz) during exposure to carbon dioxide. When exposed to isoflurane, no calls were detected from any of the animals. The frequent occurrence of ultrasonic vocalizations during carbon dioxide exposure suggests that the common practice of carbon dioxide euthanasia is aversive to rats and that isoflurane may be a preferable alternative.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it