MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306180753 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0246-22.2022

Development of an Open Face Home Cage Running Wheel for Testing Activity-Based Anorexia and Other Applications

2022· article· en· W4306180753 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan Godfrey, Kehan Chen, Temoor Tayyab, Gina Dimitropoulos, Frank P. MacMaster

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMathison Centre for Mental Health Research and EducationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsWheel runningAnorexiaReplicateMotor activityCageComputer sciencePsychologyLocomotor activityOpen sourcePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationMedicineEngineeringSoftwareOperating systemMathematicsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Running wheels for mice residing in the home cage are useful for the continuous measurement of locomotor activity for studies testing exercise interventions or exercise-induced effects on brain and metabolism. Here, we have developed an open source, printable, open-faced running wheel that is automated to collect locomotor information such as distance traveled, wheel direction, and velocity that can be binned into epochs over 24 h or multiple days. This system allows for remote data collection to avoid human interference in mouse behavioral experiments. We tested this system in an activity-based anorexia procedure. Using these wheels, we replicate previous findings that food restriction augments wheel-running activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207