MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2359162387

Studies on increasing superovulation in Suffolk sheep

2004· article· en· W2359162387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jin Donghang

Bibliographic record

VenueHeilongjiang Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryoEstrous cycleOvaryUterusBiologyAndrologyAnimal scienceEndocrinologyMedicineGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suffolk sheep were superovulated by the method of CIDR+FSH+PG and then the embryos were collected from the corners of uterus on the 6th day after estrus and matingThe average number of embryos per sheep was 689±262 (372/54),the average number of useful embryos per sheep was 607±228(328/54),The effects on superovulation of Suffolk sheep were studied from the aspects as following:different FSHin different countries,LRH-A3+P4 injected or not ,repeated superovulation and ovary in left or in righeResults showed that the effect of superovulation by native FSH made in Canada and FSHmade in Japan were better than the others,the useful embryos per sheep were 920±164(n=10)and 775±167(n=16) respectively; 725±118(n=16)of useful embryo was obtained in the group theat injected LRH+P4,which is remarkably higher than that of the control group of 411±138(n=9);The number of useful embryo per sheep of the second time was 919±339(n=16)heigher than that of the first time 600±327(n=16)in repeated superovulation group (the interval is 12 months)There was no obviously difference in the number of useful embryos between left ovary and right ovary

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 score0.004

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeilongjiang Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→