Establishing a Three Rs Programme at the Canadian Council on Animal Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anniversary of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) provides an opportunity to celebrate the Charity's achievements over the past 40 years, and in particular, its contribution to the international acceptance of the Three Rs as the basis of an ethic for animal experimentation, and its role as a leader in the implementation of the Three Rs in the life sciences. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) has based its work on the Three Rs, especially since the establishment of its fundamental CCAC Policy Statement on the Ethics of Animal Investigation (1989). Following recommendations from the evaluation of its programmes by external committees established by the national granting agencies, the CCAC recently launched a Three Rs Program. This programme will build on the work of FRAME and other similar Three Rs organisations, to further the promotion and implementation of the Three Rs in Canadian science.
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 | 0.056 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".