MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In Vito Fertilization in Buffaloes: A Review

2015· review· en· W2052184027 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saber Mohamed Abd-Allah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman fertilizationIn vitro fertilisationBlastocystBiologyOocyteIn vitro maturationAndrologyEmbryoEmbryogenesisGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the review of original data concerning the effect of some factors on oocyte development in vitro of buffaloes. In vitro fertilization is a multi – step process: oocytes maturation, fertilization and embryo culture. In vitro fertilization is strongly influenced by events occurring during oocyte maturation, fertilization and the subsequent development of the fertilized oocytes. With the advancement of IVF procedures, variability in developmental rate and viability of in vitro produced buffalo embryos so, improving the efficiency and identifying the sources of variations between IVF systems are more important when routinely producing blastocysts from individuals of high genetic merits. Also, the development of specific culture regimes capable of supporting in vitro maturation (IVM), in vitro fertilization (IVF) and in vitro culture (IVC) to the blastocyst stage is highly desirable in breeding systems. This paper discusses the technical aspects of the procedures involved in in vitro fertilization of buffaloes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207