MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133213758 · doi:10.5713/ajas.2006.341

Factors Affecting Superovulation and Embryo Transfer in Boer Goats

2006· article· en· W2133213758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhongle Chang, Xinzhong Fan, Ming‐Jiu Luo, Zhanyuan Wu, Jing-He Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryoEmbryo transferDoseBoer goatBiologyPregnancy ratePregnancyAnimal scienceSeasonal breederAndrologyEndocrinologyMedicineGeneticsZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite many studies, results of superovulation protocols are not consistent in farm animals. In this study, 151 Boer goats were superovulated to examine the factors affecting superovulation and embryo transfer (MOET). An optimal regime for superovulation treatment was identified as a 4-day treatment with decreasing dosages of 6-7 mg Chinese FSH or 240 mg Canadian FSH. The 4-day treatment with decreasing dosages of 6-7 mg Chinese FSH was, therefore, adopted to study effects of the age of does, season and repeated treatments on superovulation and embryo transfer. The best season for superovulation and embryo transfer and pregnancy was autumn, and the best age range was 12-35 months old. Within animals there were no significant differences in the number of ovulations and the rate of transferable embryos between the first and the second superovulation. However, these parameters declined significantly for the third superovulation. No marked effects of the number of ovulations on the proportion of transferable embryos were noted. The parturition rate of the recipients receiving single embryos was not different significantly from those receiving two embryos, and the kidding rate calculated from embryos transferred did not differ significantly between recipients receiving one and two embryos.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian-Australasian Journal of Animal SciencesSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207