MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155413843 · doi:10.1016/j.jfms.2011.05.008

Feline Reproduction

2011· review· en· W2155413843 on OpenAlex
Susan E. Little

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

VenueJournal of Feline Medicine and Surgery · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsBytown Cat Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductionCATSBiologyZoologyMedicineEcologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AUDIENCE: Many veterinarians are closely involved with pedigree cat breeding and have become familiar with the unique characteristics of feline reproduction and breeding management. However, even veterinarians who do not have involvement with the pedigree cat fancy require a basic knowledge of the reproductive problems that are most likely to be encountered in working with non-breeding pet cats as well as stray and feral cats. CLINICAL CHALLENGES: This article reviews reproductive problems and challenges in both sexes - namely, ovarian remnant syndrome, mammary fibroadenomatous hyperplasia, congenital anomalies of the reproductive tract and pregnancy diagnosis in the queen, and cryptorchidism and low libido in the tom. EVIDENCE BASE: Feline reproduction has not received the amount of investigation and attention that has been directed at canine reproduction. The result is that less data is available both for description of normal reproduction and for management of common problems. This article reviews most of the available evidence for the conditions discussed. Efforts should focus on making information more readily available to the practitioner and expanding the knowledge base in this important area of feline medicine.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.403
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.028 · 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