Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stress cues can affect the welfare of animals in close proximity and are possibly useful non-invasive indicators of the emitters’ welfare. To facilitate their study in murids, we tested whether rats’ stress odours could be collected and stored using an enfleurage-type technique. ‘Donor’ rats were individually exposed to a compound stressor (carriedcirca75 m inside a novel container, then euthanised with rising carbon dioxide) while on blotting paper dotted with melted vegetable lard. These sheets were sealed, left at room temperature for 2-5 h, and then ‘bioassayed’ by a blind observer for their effects on conspecifics. Compared with control sheets (exposed to unstressed rats, to CO2alone, or untreated), stress-exposed sheets significantly affected the unconditioned behaviour of 16 pairs of detector rats trained to enter an arena from their home cage to obtain sucrose. When used to line this arena, the stress-exposed sheets significantly increased: i) rats’ latencies to eat, to place front feet into, and to completely step into the arena and ii) shuttling movements between arena and home cage. These pilot data thus suggest that odours produced by stressed rats can be simply and successfully collected and stored for several hours, though certain potential confounds (eg urine volume) may conceivably be alternative explanations for the observed effects. Future work should control for urine volume, and assess whether fat is needed for optimal odour absorption by paper and for how long sheets can be stored at various temperatures. Much fundamental work is also still needed on the nature, functions, and sources of stress odours.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".