Report of Workshop on Euthanasia for Zebrafish—A Matter of Welfare and Science
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
The increasing importance of zebrafish as a biomedical model organism is reflected by the steadily growing number of publications and laboratories working with this species. Regulatory recommendations for euthanasia as issued in Directive 2010/63/EU are, however, based on experience with fish species used for food production and do not take the small size and specific physiology of zebrafish into account. Consequently, the currently recommended methods of euthanasia in the Directive 2010/63/EU are either not applicable or may interfere with research goals. An international workshop was held in Karlsruhe, Germany, March 9, 2017, to discuss and propose alternative methods for euthanasia of zebrafish. The aim was to identify methods that adequately address the physiology of zebrafish and its use as a biomedical research model, follow the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) in animal experimentation and consider animal welfare during anesthesia and euthanasia. The results of the workshop are summarized here in the form of a white paper.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it