| Title |
Cephalopod biology and care, a COST FA1301 (CephsInAction) training school: anaesthesia and scientific procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Invertebrate Neuroscience, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10158-017-0200-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa M. Lopes, Eduardo Sampaio, Katina Roumbedakis, Nobuaki K. Tanaka, Lucía Carulla, Guillermo Gambús, Theodosia Woo, Catarina P. P. Martins, Virginie Penicaud, Colette Gibbings, Jessica Eberle, Perla Tedesco, Isabel Fernández, Tania Rodríguez-González, Pamela Imperadore, Giovanna Ponte, Graziano Fiorito |
| Abstract |
Cephalopods are the sole invertebrates included in the list of regulated species following the Directive 2010/63/EU. According to the Directive, achieving competence through adequate training is a requisite for people having a role in the different functions (article 23) as such carrying out procedures on animals, designing procedures and projects, taking care of animals, killing animals. Cephalopod Biology and Care Training Program is specifically designed to comply with the requirements of the "working document on the development of a common education and training framework to fulfil the requirements under the Directive 2010/63/EU". The training event occurred at the ICM-CSIC in Barcelona (Spain) where people coming from Europe, America and Asia were instructed on how to cope with regulations for the use of cephalopod molluscs for scientific purposes. The training encompasses discussion on the guidelines for the use and care of animals and their welfare with particular reference to procedures that may be of interest for neuroscience. Intensive discussion has been carried out during the training sessions with focus on behavioural studies and paradigms, welfare assessment, levels of severity of scientific procedures, animal care, handling, transport, individual identification and marking, substance administration, anaesthesia, analgesia and humane killing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Guinea-Bissau | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 26% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,393,039
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Invertebrate Neuroscience
#44
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,752
of 321,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Invertebrate Neuroscience
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them