Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the US Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Canadian Council on Animal Care Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals specify that suitable enrichment and social interaction with con-specifics should be considered when planning adequate housing for all laboratory animal species. In response to this dictum, the University of Notre Dame established an Environmental Enrichment Committee to develop, implement and assess an overall enrichment programme that encompasses all species housed at the Freimann Life Science Center. Although many enrichment strategies had been used prior to the formation of the committee, having the facility director formally authorize a committee gave the members credibility with the Principle Investigators, resources for programme development and time allotments for meetings and observations. The committee members began their assignment by defining the committee goals and responsibilities. Six categories for the enrichment strategies were established: social interaction, burrowing opportunities, perches and ramps, foraging opportunities, gnawing opportunities and food treats. A programme was developed to encompass the use of techniques within these categories with the animals that would benefit from them. Our experience is that the Environmental Enrichment Committee is an effective vehicle for the development and implementation of enrichment strategies.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it