Development and validation of a behavioral acclimation protocol for cats to respiration chambers used for indirect calorimetry studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cats exposed to stressful and novel environments initiate stress responses as evidenced by behavioural and physiological changes which, in turn, modify energy requirement and metabolism leading to the collection of unreliable results from nutritional trials conducted on stressed cats. 14 cats (10 ± 2 months) were subjected to an 11 week acclimation procedure to adapt cats to restriction within a chamber used for calorimetry studies. Cats were acclimated to the chambers on weeks 1–3, the study room on weeks 4–6 and increasing restriction periods of 1 to 20 hrs within the chamber on weeks 7–11. Ten additional cats (11 ± 1 month), used as controls, were subjected to 5 hrs of restriction without prior chamber or study room exposure to compare responses. Stress level, feed intake, fearfulness and eliminations were recorded. Cat‐Stress‐Scores (CSS) and latencies to approach a novel object peaked on weeks 4 and 7 (P<0.05). CSS declined with exposure to a novel experience and on week 11, stress levels were low and consistent (P<0.05). CSS was greater in un‐acclimated as compared to acclimated cats (P<0.05). In conclusion, acclimation protocols prepare cats for repeated, temporary restriction, whereas short acclimations do not. A step up acclimation procedure with behavioral indices of stress should be utilized to prepare cats for research that necessitates restriction. Supported by: The Procter and Gamble Co., Pet Care, Ohio, USA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".