A framework and resource for global collaboration in non-human primate neuroscience
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.
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 | 0.064 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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".