Gas killing of rats: the effect of supplemental oxygen on aversion to carbon dioxide
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
Abstract High concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), used for killing laboratory rodents, are known to be more strongly aversive to rats than sweet food items are attractive. This study investigated whether the maintenance of a high oxygen (O 2 ) concentration, using a gas mixture of 70% CO 2 and 30% O 2 , would reduce aversion to CO 2 during a gradual-fill procedure. Eight male Wistar rats, aged 10 months, were housed individually in an apparatus consisting of two cages, one higher than the other and joined by a tube. In a series of trials, subjects entered the lower cage for a reward of 20 sweet food items. The gas was turned on at the moment the rat started eating the reward items and flowed into the lower cage at a fixed rate. There were four treatments: 1) 100% CO 2 at 14.5% cage volume min –1 ; 2) gas mixture at 14.5% min –1 ; 3) gas mixture at 21.0% min –1 , which delivered CO 2 at approximately 14.5% min –1 and 4) air, with each subject tested with each treatment four times. Measures of willingness to stay and eat in the lower cage (latency to stop eating, latency to leave and the number of reward items eaten) were much lower in all three gas treatments than in air, indicating that the CO 2 and the CO 2 + O 2 mixture were both more strongly aversive than sweet food items were attractive. Comparing the gas mixture with 100% CO 2 , the latency to leave and the number of reward items eaten were slightly higher in the CO 2 + O 2 mixture at 21% min –1 than in CO 2 at 14.5% min –1 , indicating that the addition of O 2 slightly reduced the aversiveness of CO 2 in the gradual-fill procedure. This reduction is not enough to warrant recommending the use of CO 2 + O 2 mixtures for killing rats.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it