MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052851406 · doi:10.4141/cjas07150

Pregnancy rates and peripheral progesterone levels following Ovsynch or CIDR ovulation synchronization/timed artificial insemination protocols in postpartum dairy cows

2008· article· en· W2052851406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Aali, T. Pretheeban, G. Giritharan, R. Rajamahendran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationArtificial inseminationPregnancyMedicinePregnancy rateAnimal scienceInduced ovulationPostpartum periodInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peripheral progesterone (P4) concentrations as well as pregnancy rates (PR) between cows treated with Ovsynch or CIDR ovulation synchronization/TAI protocols were compared. Two hundred and twenty-seven postpartum lactating Holstein cows were randomly assigned to Ovsynch (n = 111) or CIDR (n = 116) ovulation synchronization/TAI protocols. Pregnancy was diagnosed by ultrasonography at day 35 after TAI and later confirmed by rectal palpation at day 60 post TAI. Milk samples were taken from the beginning of treatment (day -10) until day 35 after TAI (day 0) for P4 determination. Pregnancy rates for Ovsynch and CIDR groups of cows were 31 and 41%, respectively. The PR of ovulation synchronized cows for Ovsynch and CIDR groups were 49 and 69%, respectively. Progesterone levels during the sampling period were similar (P > 0.05) between Ovsynch and CIDR treated cows. Key words: Pregnancy rate, progesterone, Ovsynch, CIDR, cows

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207