A framework and resource for global collaboration in non-human primate neuroscience
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
As science and technology evolve, there is an increasing need for promotion of international scientific exchange. Collaborations, while offering substantial opportunities for scientists and benefit to society, also present challenges for those working with animal models, such as non-human primates (NHPs). Diversity in regulation of animal research is sometimes mistaken for the absence of common international welfare standards. Here, the ethical and regulatory protocols for 13 countries that have guidelines in place for biomedical research involving NHPs were assessed with a focus on neuroscience. Review of the variability and similarity in trans-national NHP welfare regulations extended to countries in Asia, Europe and North America. A tabulated resource was established to advance solution-oriented discussions and scientific collaborations across borders. Our aim is to better inform the public and other stakeholders. Through cooperative efforts to identify and analyze information with reference to evidence-based discussion, the proposed key ingredients may help to shape and support a more informed, open framework. This framework and resource can be expanded further for biomedical research in other countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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