MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2350461619

Study of technologies of superovulation on Poll Dorset sheep

2005· article· en· W2350461619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrous cycleBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyOvaryEmbryoSeasonal breederAnimal scienceMedicineEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to investigate the superovulation(SOV) efficiency of two different FSHs (made in Canada and China respectively ) on Poll Dorset sheep. Therefore,the experiment compared several factors on SOV,including ways of drug administration,repeated SOV,multi- or primiparous ewes, season,natural estrous and induced estrous and unknown estrous cycles. At the same time,the effects of corpora lutea degradation, follicles and estrous delayed on SOV were observed. The results of this study show that FSH (CA) had the best effect on SOV,the second was the combination of FSH (made in Ningbo and in Chinese Academy of Science). Repeated superovulation had no significant effect on SOV efficiency. Multiparous ewes had better SOV result than primiparous ewes. SOV was better in natural estrous ewes than induced estrous and unknown estrous cycle ewes. Useable embryo recovery was significantly low in ewes of corpora lutea degradation. Follicles' existing in ovary or not had no significant difference on SOV and the efficiency of SOV was significantly lower in the estrous delayed ewes than in normal estrous ewes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Physiology in Livestock→French-language works237,207→