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
The present study investigated the preference of male and female Syrian hamsters, Mesocricetus auratus, for different types of running wheels. Hamsters were placed individually in sets of multiple cages linked by tunnels, each cage with a different running wheel. The number of wheel revolutions in each cage was tallied daily over 40 days. The hamsters did not express a preference when offered a choice of a running surface made of metal rods spaced 9 mm apart and a similar running surface covered in plastic mesh to prevent the possible slippage of feet between the rods. The hamsters did express a clear preference for larger wheels (35 versus 23 cm diameter), and for completely circular wheels over truncated ones. They neither favoured nor rejected wheels with small obstacles along the running surface. In all experiments, preferences were more strongly expressed by males than by females. Running wheels for hamsters may be improved by enlarging their diameter (to the standards often used for rats, if practically possible) and by ensuring good footing on the running surface (a space no larger than 9 mm between evenly spaced rods seems sufficient to achieve this, at least in large wheels and for hamsters older than 55 days). Installing obstacles along the running surface does not appear to make the wheel more interesting to hamsters.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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