Using Paper Nest Pucks to Prevent Barbering in C57BL/6 Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has been conducted to examine the influence of various methods of providing nest materials-such as dispersing them, providing them as single units, or clustering them-on the behavior and welfare of group-housed mice. In this study, 6 wk-old C57BL/6NCrl mice were housed 3 per cage and randomized into 1 of 3 nest-material groups: 1) one facial tissue per cage (control; female mice, 3 cages; male mice, 3 cages); 2) an 8-g 'puck' of compressed nesting material and a facial tissue (females, 3 cages; males, 3 cages); or 3) 8 g of dispersed paper strips and a facial tissue (females, 3 cages; males, 3 cages). Mouse behavior (agonistic, stereotypic, nesting), physical examination data, and nest scores were evaluated over 16 d. The results showed that mice in the puck and control groups spent more time manipulating nest materials after cage changes than did mice in the paper-strip group. Average nest scores were highest in the paper-strip group compared with controls and puck cages. Female cages with pucks showed no barbering, whereas all other female mice cages demonstrated barbering. Overall, nest pucks may provide a time-consuming activity for mice and may help protect female C57BL/6 mice from barbering. However, more research is needed to replicate and expand these study results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".