Approach-aversion in calves following injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed aversion to injections using an avoidance-learning paradigm. Holstein calves (n = 24) were randomly assigned to one of four routes of administration for 0.5 ml of saline: intramuscular (IM), intranasal (IN), subcutaneous (SC) and a null control. Calves were first trained to approach a milk reward of 1 L. Once the latency to approach the reward was consistent, calves received their assigned treatment when approaching the bottle. For the first 3 treatment sessions calves received a 1 L milk reward. This reward was then reduced to 500 mL, and then to 250 mL, and finally to 0 mL, each for 3 sessions. Compared to control calves, calves receiving the intramuscular injections showed a longer latency to approach the milk reward, but only when the milk reward was 0.25 L (P = 0.05) and 0 L (P < 0.01). Calves receiving the intranasal injections showed longer latencies relative to the controls only for the 0 L reward (P = 0.01). Calves receiving the subcutaneous injections did not differ from controls for any of the milk rewards (P > 0.2). We conclude that IM injections are aversive and that SC and IN routes are a refinement to be considered when feasible.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".