Ovarian Structures During Sexual Receptivity at Mating and Post Coïtum Stage in Algerian Rabbits: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present work was a comparative study of the ovaries of local Algerian rabbit population, based on their sexual receptivity at mating. A total of 60 rabbits were divided equally into 3 groups according to the expression of their sexual receptivity at the time of presentation to a male: receptive (R+), non-receptive + assisted mating (R-+AM), non-receptive + AM + an injection of GnRH (R-+AM+GnRH). They were weighed and sacrificed 0 to 14h p.c. to study ovarian structures. Receptive does were heavier than non-receptive (2.010 vs. 1.979 kg, P <0.05). Females from groups R+ and R-+ AM had a higher number of preovulatory follicles than does of group R-+AM+GnRH (60%, P <0.05). The frequency of ovulation was significantly influenced by the receptivity of rabbits and the p.c. stage, but the ovulation intensity did not vary between groups. All receptive does ovulated at 10hp.cwhile for non-receptive, ovulations were still observed between 10 and 14h. The diameter of antral follicles of R-+AM + GnRH was significantly higher (722 vs. 567, 604 µm) due to the injection of GnRH. The number of Call Exner bodies was influenced by treatmentgroup and p.c.stage. We noted itwas particularly high in R-+AM+ GnRH group (respectively 2.81, 3.20 vs. 3.99, + 30%, P <0.001). In conclusion, sexual receptivity and GnRH influence ovarian structures and frequency of ovulation of nulliparous local Algerian rabbits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".