MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135749491 · doi:10.1017/s0962728600024908

Rats Demand Social Contact

2002· article· en· W3135749491 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Welfare · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCageSocial contactAnimal welfareBusinessSpace (punctuation)Scale (ratio)Demographic economicsPublic economicsEconomicsPsychologyComputer scienceGeographySocial psychologyBiologyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is some evidence that rats benefit from social housing and from some forms of environmental enrichment, such as platforms and shelters. It is less clear whether they benefit from more spacious cages. There is a lack of information about the relative benefits of social contact, enrichment and increased space, because existing studies tend to concentrate on only one of these variables at a time. The current experiment used economic demand procedures as a method to compare, on a single scale, qualitatively different environments with a standard home cage. The data indicate that rats show a high demand for social contact, and a low demand for a larger cage or one containing pillars or novel objects. This finding suggests that social housing of laboratory rats should be strongly advocated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it