MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gas Chromatographic Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Estrus Specific Volatile Compounds in Buffalo Vaginal Mucus after Initial Sexual Foreplay

2013· article· en· W2140865766 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kandasamy Karthikeyan, Govindaraju Archunan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaDepartment of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsEstrous cycleSalivaMucusChemistryChromatographyOleic acidGas chromatography–mass spectrometryMass spectrometryEndocrinologyBiologyBiochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vaginal fluid from buffaloes in estrus, non-estrus condition and saliva from bulls that have licked vaginal mucus were collected. The samples were analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in order to evaluate the qualitative differences between the volatile profiles of vaginal mucus and saliva to assess their potential value in buffalo bio-communication. Fifteen different organic compounds were detected. The chemical profiles of estrus vaginal fluid were distinguished significantly by the presence of specific substance, 9-octadecenoic acid (oleic acid) that was not present in non-estrus phase. The results are consistent with the view that the oleic acid acts as chemosignal in a number of mammalian species. Based on the result it is concluded that the volatile substance present in buffalo vaginal fluid may act as a chemical stimulant.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207