The effects of pain following disbudding on calf memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have found evidence of pain in the hours following hot-iron disbudding, but little is known about longer-lasting pain following this procedure. Work on humans and rats has shown that lasting pain can have negative effects on the formation and recall of memories. The objective of this study was to assess whether lasting pain following disbudding affects learning and memory in calves. A modified hole-board apparatus was used to assess how quickly calves were able to learn the locations of 4 bottles containing milk dispersed among 11 locations with empty bottles. At 14 d of age and after 6 d of training on this task, calves (n = 30) were randomly assigned to 3 treatments: disbudding with analgesic on the day of the procedure, disbudding with analgesic throughout the study, and sham disbudding. All calves were sedated, given a lidocaine cornual local block and a single injection of an nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Starting on the day after their disbudding treatment, calves were tested daily using the modified hole-board apparatus. After 12 d of testing, the locations of the 4 milk-containing bottles were switched, and calves then relearned the locations of the rewarded bottles over the next 6 daily test sessions. We found general working memory (i.e., short-term memory) and reference memory (i.e., long-term memory) increased over the 12 d of testing, declined when locations were switched on d 13, and then again increased over the final 6 d of testing. We did not find an effect of treatment on any measure, perhaps because there was no lasting pain or because effects were too minor to detect using this test of spatial memory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".