Comparison of four diluents for the retriever dogs semen preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of chilled semen depends on the composition of diluent. The choice of the buffer, anti-cold shock and nutrition sources can be the first decision in order to choose appropriate diluents. Nowadays a lot of diluent are used for canine semen preservation such as Tris buffer and Citrate buffer. This study was aimed to observe the differences of diluent for preserving Retriever dog spermatozoa. The semen sample collected from four Retriever dogs with three times repetition. The semen was evaluated macro-and microscopically. The semen with 70% sperm motility was divided into four tubes and diluted with diluter 1 (P1), diluter: P2, P3 and P4 (modified P3). The diluted semen was divided into two tubes and each sample was stored at room and 50C temperature. The viability of chilled semen was observed every 3 hours at room temperature and 12 hours at 50C. The result showed that P2 keep the sperm viability better than the other diluents. On 50C at 24 hours storage P2 showed the highest motile and live sperm percentage (46.25 ± 0.22%; 57.11 ± 0.25%). In room temperature at 6 hours P2 showed the highest motile and live sperm percentage (40.94 ± 0.20%; 52.65 ± 0.23%). It is concluded that P2 can keep the sperm viability by 84 hours of 50C and 21 hours at room temperature. Key Words: Diluents, Dog Sperm, Retriever
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".