Comparison of lidocaine and compression for velvet antler analgesia in wapiti.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research compared ring block lidocaine anesthesia (L) and compression (C) for velvet antler removal in elk. Thirty-two wapiti were given 1 mg/kg body weight of zuclopenthixol acetate. The next day, they were restrained in a hydraulic chute and given either a compression device or a lidocaine ring block on the antler pedicle. Behavioral and physiological responses to treatment application and antler removal were recorded, and blood was collected for cortisol analysis. During application of L and C, increases in mean heart rate and systolic arterial blood pressure were greater in the C treatment group (P < 0.05, and P = 0.05, respectively). When antler was removed, more behavioral responses occurred in the C treatment group (P = 0.02) and its median behavior score was higher (P = 0.03). Mean heart rates increased for both treatment groups when antlers were removed (P < 0.01). It was concluded that application of C may be painful, and that C was not as effective as L for analgesia for velvet antler removal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".