Ovarian synchronisation in wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) during the anovulatory season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were performed in wood bison during the anovulatory season to establish an effective protocol for ovarian synchronisation. In an untreated control phase, bison cows (n=19) were examined daily to establish the interval to new follicular wave emergence (4.9±0.7 days) for the purposes of comparison with the experimental treatments. In Experiment 1, bison were treated by transvaginal ultrasound-guided follicular ablation (n=9) or with 2mg, i.m., 17β-oestradiol (n=10). In Experiment 2, bison were treated by follicular ablation (n=9) or with 2mg, i.m., 17β-oestradiol +100mg, i.m., progesterone (n=10). In Experiment 1, the interval to new wave emergence for control, follicular ablation and 17β-oestradiol-treated groups was 4.9±0.7, 1.1±0.1 and 3.1±0.4 days, respectively (P<0.05). The degree of synchrony was 2.4±0.4, 0.2±0.1 and 0.8±0.2 days, respectively (P<0.05). In Experiment 2, the interval to new wave emergence for control, follicular ablation and 17β-oestradiol + progesterone-treated groups was 4.9±0.7, 1.2±0.2 and 3.3±0.3 days, respectively (P<0.05), and the degree of synchrony was 2.4±0.4, 0.2±0.1, and 0.8±0.2 days, respectively (P<0.05). The degree of synchrony did not differ between ablation and hormone treatment groups in either experiment, but was greater in treatment groups than in the untreated control phase. Both follicular ablation and hormone treatment shortened and decreased the variability in the interval to follicular wave emergence in bison, but wave emergence occurred earlier after follicular ablation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".