MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W78887218

The welfare of animals used in science: how the "Three Rs" ethic guides improvements.

2009· article· en· W78887218 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Fenwick, Gilly Griffin, Clément Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsCanadian Council on Animal Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal welfareCrueltyPremiseWelfareDistressAnimal rightsPain and sufferingAnimal ethicsSet (abstract data type)PsychologyEnvironmental ethicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceCriminologyLawBiologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term “animal welfare” is widely used to refer to an animal’s quality of life. It encompasses the following: animals should be healthy, well fed, and housed in an environment that they might themselves choose; animals should be relatively free from negative states, such as pain, fear and distress, and capable of enjoying life; and animals should be able to carry out behaviors and activities that they are strongly motivated to do (1). The public has long been concerned about the welfare of animals as illustrated by our laws to prevent animal cruelty, the existence of humane organizations funded by charitable donations, and the use of public money to fund animal use oversight bodies. Public concern for animal welfare extends to animals used for science: although studies show that the public supports animal-based research, people also want animal pain and distress to be minimized (2). In Canada, continuing improvements to the welfare of animals used in science have occurred over the past few decades partly because of the explicit adoption of a set of principles to guide the ethical evaluation of animal use. This is the “Three Rs” tenet — Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (3). The tenet is grounded in the premise that animals should be used only if a scientist’s best efforts to find a nonanimal alternative have failed, and that when animals are needed, only the most humane methods should be used on the smallest number of animals required to obtain valid information (4). Specifically, “Replacement alternatives” refers to methods that avoid or replace the use of animals in an area where animals would otherwise have been used, including both absolute replacements (replacing animals with inanimate systems, such as computer programs) and relative replacements (replacing more sentient animals, such as vertebrates, with animals that current scientific evidence indicates have a significantly lower potential for pain perception, such as some invertebrates). “Reduction alternatives” refers to any strategy that will result in fewer animals being used to obtain sufficient data to answer the research question, or in maximizing the information obtained per animal and thus potentially limiting or avoiding the subsequent use of additional animals, without compromising animal welfare. “Refinement alternatives” refers to the modification of husbandry or experimental procedures to minimize pain and distress, and to enhance the welfare of an animal used in science from the time it is born until its death (5). Today in Canada and internationally, the Three Rs ethic of animal use is an accepted part of the culture of animal-based science. In Canada, the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) is the national organization that has the responsibility for overseeing the care and use of animals in science. Through the overarching CCAC policy statement on: Ethics of animal investigation (4), the CCAC has incorporated adherence to the Three Rs tenet as the fundamental basis for the ethical oversight of scientific animal care and use. Briefly, the oversight process requires that use of animals for a scientific purpose (research, teaching, testing) is subject to review and approval by an animal care committee located at the institution where the animal use is proposed. To reflect the broader public, animal care committees are composed of not only scientists and veterinary professionals, but also non-users of animals from the local institution and community representatives. The CCAC also has a strong mandate to communicate with the Canadian public and to provide information to scientists to enable compliance with accepted standards. The CCAC has developed a new internet resource to communicate how the Three Rs tenet is implemented and to distribute related science-based resources: the “Three Rs Microsite” (5). The Microsite offers information on a wide range of topics related to Three Rs-Alternatives, for example Experimental Design, Telemetry, and Humane Killing; information on special topics such as Agricultural Research and Three Rs and Genetically Engineered Animals; plus a section with Additional Resources, including Species Specific Resources and a list of Three-Rs related journals.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.098
Scholarly communication0.0210.027
Open science0.0050.015
Research integrity0.0210.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations123
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207