MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063952593 · doi:10.1089/153623001753205106

Sexual Maturation and Fertility of Male Nigerian Dwarf Goat ( <i>Capra hircus</i> ) Clones Produced by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

2001· article· en· W2063952593 on OpenAlexaff
M. Gauthier, J.N. Pierson, Michel Drolet, B. Bhatia, Hernán Baldassarre, Carol L. Keefer

Bibliographic record

VenueCloning and Stem Cells · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCapra hircusSemenBreedAndrologyFertilitySomatic cellSemen collectionSpermOffspringAnimal scienceArtificial inseminationPregnancyGeneticsPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three, genetically identical, Nigerian Dwarf bucks produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (NT) of fetal fibroblasts were monitored for sexual maturation and fertility. Starting at four months of age, these male clones were trained to serve an artificial vagina (AV). Average age of the NT-derived bucks at first semen collection was 20 weeks, which was not different from that of other young bucks of this breed (average age at first collection = 20 weeks). Average sperm production at 5 months of age for the NT-derived bucks was 5.0 x 10(8) spermatozoa, which was comparable to that of dwarf bucks of similar age (3.4 x 10(8) spermatozoa). At seven months of age, semen collected from two NT-derived bucks was used to artificially inseminate six females (three does per buck). Five does were confirmed pregnant by ultrasound at day 42. Nine healthy kids, four males and five females, were born in March and April 2000. Viable spermatozoa were collected from one of the F1 males at 28 weeks of age. These results demonstrated that NT-derived bucks and one of their male offspring developed sexually within the normal timeframe for their breed and that the clones were fertile.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCloning and Stem CellsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207