Effects of bedding material and running wheel surface on paw wounds in male and female Syrian hamsters
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 effects of bedding material (pine shavings versus beta chip) and running wheel surfaces (standard metal bars versus metal bars covered with a plastic mesh) on the occurrence of wounds on the paws of male and female Syrian (golden) hamsters, Mesocricetus auratus. Four groups of 10 males and 10 females were each assigned to one of the following treatments: pine/no mesh, pine/mesh, chips/no mesh and chips/mesh. Each hamster paw was observed at 1-3-day intervals for 60 days. A total of 1-3 wounds, separate in time, developed on the paws (mostly the hind ones) of almost all animals. Wounds appeared as small pinpricks, cuts or scabs, mostly on the palms. Females ran 15% less than males, yet their front paws were more commonly affected and their wounds tended to last longer. Hamsters with plastic mesh inside their wheels took longer to develop wounds but once they appeared, the wounds were larger and lasted longer. Hamsters on pine shavings developed fewer wounds and had more wound-free days. Hamsters kept running at high levels and many wounds did not heal during the study, suggesting a need for veterinary intervention.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it