Preferences of mice, <i>Mus musculus,</i> for different types of running wheel
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
Mice are increasingly used in research. In particular, their wheel running is often used as a measure of activity, and as a marker of phase of circadian rhythms. Learning about the preferences of mice for different types of wheel may improve their welfare and suggest ways of increasing activity levels. Mice, Mus musculus, were given a choice between different types of running wheel by putting them in cages equipped with two wheels. Strong preferences were shown for wheels with a plastic mesh flooring, rather than the standard metal rods only. The mesh was even preferred over a solid base, although this effect was not seen in mice that had been given access only to wheels with the solid base immediately prior to the choice test. Small diameter wheels, sometimes sold as mouse wheels, were preferred less than standard-sized wheels with rods. The results suggest that types of running wheel often used in laboratories can be improved by considering the animals' preferences. The types of wheel tested here are easy to maintain and entail little additional cost, while increasing the mouse's interest in running and exercise.
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 | 0.000 |
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