Artificial insemination in sows using Guelph and two local semen extenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty two and half-year-old Large White sows and 12 boars of the same breed and age were used to study the comparative effects of conventional (Guelph) and local (coconut water and fresh raphia palm wine) extenders and storage (3 days) on the fertility of artificially inseminated sows. Semen was collected twice a week by gloved-hand method. Semen was either extended or unextended and evaluated on the day of collection (day 0) and during day 3 of storage for percentage sperm motility, acrosome morphology and fertility (Non-return rate, farrowing rate and litter size). Both Guelph and local extenders produced significant effects (P<0.01) on boar semen characteristics and fertility. Fresh semen extended in Guelph entender had the highest percentage sperm motility (86.2%) whereas fresh semen extended with coconut water gave the highest normal apical ridge (NAR) (91%); farrowing rate (88.3%). Litter size (7.1 piglets/litter alive (5.8), with the highest number of non return to service sows. Guelph extended semen ranked second in influencing fertility in sows.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".