MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539295917 · doi:10.5772/34784

Kinetic Vitrification of Spermatozoa of Vertebrates: What Can We Learn from Nature?

2012· book-chapter· en· W1539295917 on OpenAlexaff
Igor I. Katkov, V. F. Bolyukh, O.A. Chernetsov, P.I. Dudin, A.Y. Grigoriev, Vladimir Isachenko, Evgenia Isachenko, Ayub G.-M. Lulat, Sergey I. Moskovtsev, Maryna Petrushkо, V.I. Pinyaev, K.M. Sokol, Y.I. Sokol, A. B. Sushko, Ilya Yakhnenko

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrificationBiologyAndrologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why sperm? Cryobiology had actually started from freezing sperm. We will skip all those very early anecdotes but should mention the Spallanzani attempt to freeze frog semen in the 18th century [Spallanzani, 1780]. Cryobiology as a science started with revolutionizing work of Father Luyet and other scientists of the late 1930’s and 1940’s, who we can collectively call “the pioneers of the cryobiological frontiers” (see the following sub-Chapter). There were several reasons why sperm was chosen, which included easiness in obtaining the samples, clear evidence of viability (moving – not moving, though later it was figured that everything was not so easy in this sophisticated living “cruise missile”), and importance for the farming industry with the emergence of systematic selective breeding (especially in cattle) with a powerful tool – artificial insemination (AI). AI started with the revolutionary work of W. Heape, I.I. Ivanov and other scientists at the dawn of the 20th century and was further developed by V.K. Milovanov in the 1930’s as a viable breeding technology (see [Foote,

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207