The institutional animal care committee: Keystone of international harmonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The various national systems of oversight for the care and ethical use of animals in science have many fundamental elements in common including: regulations/guidelines/policies, and training requirements for key staff. Authorization of animal use may occur centrally as in the UK, regionally as in several European countries, or locally, through institutional Animal Care Committees (ACCs), as in Canada, US and Australia. Canada is recognized as having pioneered the establishment of ACCs as the keystone of peer-based ethical review processes and local quality control. The institutional ACC has a central role to play in the international harmonization of standards because: it is representative of the scientific culture and moral values of home countries; it facilitates communications and empowers informed decision-making at the local level; it is already integrated as an accountable keystone of most national oversight and regulatory systems worldwide; and it provides each nation with enhanced ability to influence international harmonization of best practices for animal care and use in science.
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 | 0.229 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".