The mode of ovulation in the Namaqua rock mouse, <i>Micaelamys namaquensis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pattern of ovulation in mammals is generally considered to be either spontaneous or induced by copulation, with environmental and social factors playing a key role in determining the specific mode of ovulation that would maximize the reproductive potential of the species. This study aims to determine whether the Namaqua rock mouse (Micaelamys namaquensis (A. Smith, 1834)) is a spontaneous or induced ovulator. Females were divided into three treatments differing in the degree of contact with a male. Namely, seven control females had no contact with a male; a further seven separated females had only chemical, auditory, and visual contact with a male; whereas six females had intermittent periods of full contact with a vasectomized male. Ovarian size, follicular development, and plasma progesterone concentrations were compared between the three treatments. Penile morphology was also investigated. Corpora lutea were found in all three treatments and the penis was smooth without any ridges or spikes, indicating that M. namaquensis is a spontaneous ovulator. Interestingly, however, the presence of a male (physical as well as just visual and olfactory) positively affected ovarian size, ovulation, and plasma progesterone concentrations. This signifies that although M. namaquensis ovulates spontaneously, male contact significantly influences ovulation rate and ultimately reproductive success.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".