MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breeding Soundness Evaluation and Semen Analysis for Predicting Bull Fertility

2008· review· en· W2074906381 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction in Domestic Animals · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoundnessFertilitySemenSemen analysisBiologyStatisticsAndrologyMathematicsDemographyMedicineInfertilityGeneticsComputer sciencePregnancySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bull fertility is influenced by numerous factors. Although 20-40% of bulls in an unselected population may have reduced fertility, few are completely sterile. Breeding soundness refers to a bull's ability to get cows pregnant. A standard breeding soundness evaluation identifies bulls with substantial deficits in fertility, but does not consistently identify sub-fertile bulls. In this regard, the use of frozen-thawed semen (from bulls in commercial AI centres) that meets minimum quality standards can result in pregnancy rates that differ by 20-25 percentage points. Although no single diagnostic test can accurately predict variations in fertility among bulls that are producing apparently normal semen, recent studies suggested that a combination of laboratory tests were predictive of fertility. This review is focused on recent developments in prediction of bull fertility, based on assessments at the molecular, cellular and whole-animal levels.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.281 · 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