MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038570927 · doi:10.1080/10888705.2012.658332

Development and Validation of a Behavioral Acclimation Protocol for Cats to Respiration Chambers Used for Indirect Calorimetry Studies

2012· article· en· W2038570927 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret A. Gooding, I.J.H. Duncan, James L. Atkinson, Anna K. Shoveller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCATSAcclimatizationAnimal scienceRespirationBiologyFight-or-flight responsePhysiologyEcologyMedicineInternal medicineAnatomyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cats exposed to novel environments initiate stress responses by behavioral and physiological changes that modify metabolism and lead to the collection of unreliable data. Fourteen cats (10 ± 2 months) were subjected to an 11-week acclimation procedure to adapt to restriction within chambers used for indirect calorimetry studies. Cats were acclimated to chambers in their home environments, to chambers in the study room, and to increasing periods of restriction within chambers. Ten additional cats (11 ± 1 month), used as controls, were subjected to a single 5-hr restriction without any prior exposure. Stress level, feed intake, fearfulness, and eliminations were recorded. Latencies to approach a novel object peaked on Weeks 4 and 8 (p < .05). Cat-Stress-Scores (CSS) declined with exposure and on Week 11, stress levels were low and consistent (p < .05). CSS was greater in unacclimated versus acclimated cats (p < .05). In conclusion, acclimation protocols prepare cats for repeated, temporary restriction within chambers, whereas short acclimations do not. A step-up acclimation procedure with behavioral indices of stress should be utilized to prepare cats for research that necessitates restriction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Animal Welfare ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207