Rats' Preferences for an Analgesic Compared to Water: An Alternative to “Killing the Rat So it Does Not Suffer”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common policy in research institutions is to kill rats when they display chronic disabilities or recurrent injuries. These guidelines appear to be derived from an oxymoron that "it's better for a rat to be killed so it does not suffer pain" and from untested assumptions that rats cannot control "pain." In a two-bottle paradigm, 10 rats with a history of brain damage following status epilepticus from a single systemic injection of lithium and pilocarpine were given options to consume freely either tap water or 1 mg/cc of acetaminophen in tap water. During periods of fresh lesions due to persistent gnawing or acute injuries associated with tonic-clonic convulsions, the rats consumed 3 to 10 times the fluid from the bottles containing acetaminophen (equivalent to 5 to 10 extra-strength Tylenol tablets per day for a 70-kg person) relative to periods when no lesions or old lesions were present. These results suggest that rats with chronic injuries sufficient to be terminated according to Animal Care guidelines may be capable of reducing the aversive physiological conditions associated with tissue damage by selecting analgesic treatments.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".