MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103153515 · doi:10.1577/a09-006.1

A Minimally Invasive Method for Extraction of Sturgeon Oocytes

2010· article· en· W2103153515 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James S. Candrl, Diana M. Papoulias, Donald E. Tillitt

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsBiologySturgeonFisheryZoologyExtraction (chemistry)Fish <Actinopterygii>Chromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fishery biologists, hatchery personnel, and caviar fishers routinely extract oocytes from sturgeon (Acipenseridae) to determine the stage of maturation by checking egg quality. Typically, oocytes are removed either by inserting a catheter into the oviduct or by making an incision in the body cavity. Both methods can be time-consuming and stressful to the fish. We describe a device to collect mature oocytes from sturgeons quickly and effectively with minimal stress on the fish. The device is made by creating a needle from stainless steel tubing and connecting it to a syringe with polyvinyl chloride tubing. The device is filled with saline solution or water, the needle is inserted into the abdominal wall, and eggs are extracted from the fish. Using this device, an oocyte sample can be collected in less than 30 s. Such sampling leaves a minute wound that heals quickly and does not require suturing. The extractor device can easily be used in the field or hatchery, reduces fish handling time, and minimizes stress.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of AquacultureSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207