MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156448504 · doi:10.1081/cbi-120018329

Effect of Cage Enrichment on the Daily Use of Running Wheels by Syrian Hamsters

2003· article· en· W2156448504 on OpenAlexafffund
Stéphan G. Reebs, Dominique Maillet

Bibliographic record

VenueChronobiology International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCageWheel runningCircadian rhythmMesocricetusAnimal scienceHamsterDarknessJohn CageBiologyEndocrinologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Institutional animal care committees may one day require for the welfare of captive hamsters more floor space and the introduction of tunnels and toys. As hamsters are popular animal subjects in chronobiological research, and as clock phase is usually measured through running wheel activity, it is important to determine what effect cage enrichment might have on daily wheel use. Here the daily number of wheel revolutions, the daily duration of the running activity phase, the phase relationship between lights-off and onset of running activity, and the free-running period of circadian activity rhythms were measured in Syrian hamsters, Mesocricetus auratus, housed in single cages or in multiple cages linked by tunnels and supplied with commercial wooden toys. Free-running periodicity was not affected by cage enrichment. In multiple-cage systems, there were fewer daily revolutions, shorter wheel-running activity phases, and delayed running activity onsets. These effects, however, were small as compared to interindividual and week-to-week variation. They were statistically significant only under a light:dark cycle, not in constant darkness, and only when interindividual variation was eliminated through a paired design or when the number of cages was increased to five (the maximum tested). Daily wheel use is thus affected by cage enrichment, but only slightly.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChronobiology InternationalSame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207