MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391310142 · doi:10.3138/jvme-2023-0133

Good Practices in Animal Research: A Web-Based Platform for Training in Laboratory Rodent Experimental Procedures

2024· article· en· W4391310142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dennis Albert Zanatto, Guilherme Andrade Marson, Cláudia Madalena Cabrera Mori

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Medical educationRodentWeb applicationRodent modelComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebMedicineBiologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advancement of technology has revolutionized education, particularly through video-based learning. In response, the Good Practices in Animal Research (BPEA, "Boas Práticas em Experimentação Animal" in Portuguese) platform was established as a contemporary educational tool for training in laboratory rodent experimental techniques. Designed to replace traditional animal-centered teaching methods, BPEA provided scientifically accurate video content tailored for veterinary medicine students. Mastering animal handling skills is crucial for veterinary students, and BPEA addressed this by offering video demonstrations of experimental procedures, allowing visualization and confidence-building before live animal interaction. The platform's video library covered diverse procedures, such as substance administration and blood collection, accompanied by protocols, images, and diagrams for enhanced learning. The intuitive menu facilitated easy navigation, enabling students to access content aligned with their needs. Website traffic analysis demonstrated widespread usage, with users from Portuguese-speaking countries being prominent. Integration of BPEA into the Laboratory Animal Science course at the University of São Paulo garnered positive student feedback, highlighting its value as a supplementary resource for bridging theoretical and practical learning. While BPEA showed promise in promoting ethical teaching practices and reducing animal stress, it could not entirely replace hands-on training. A balanced approach between video-based learning and live demonstrations is necessary for a comprehensive learning experience. In conclusion, BPEA was a valuable resource contributing to laboratory animal science education, aligning with ethical standards and benefiting students, researchers, and animal care professionals. Continuous improvements based on feedback make the platform a dynamic tool for future advancements in laboratory animal science education.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.021

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 head0.508
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.060 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207