Stallion Spermatozoa Viability: Comparison of Flow Cytometry with Other Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major obstacle in standardizing techniques to evaluate stallion fertility is the huge variation in ejaculates from different stallions and even among ejaculates collected from the same stallion (,). Spermatozoa concentration, total volume, motility, percent live spermatozoa, and percent normal spermatozoa can range greatly (), and any or all may have an effect on the ability of the ejaculate to fertilize. Cryopreservation of semen results in partial, irreversible membrane damage to the spermatozoa, reducing fertility rates even further. Using current industry protocols for cryopreservation of stallion semen, 50–75% of stallions do not produce ejaculates suitable for freezing (). Pregnancy rates from natural or artificial insemination have shown little improvement in recent years and this has a significant impact on the economic feasibility of the horse breeding industry. Simple, accurate assessment of the viability of fresh and cryopreserved stallion spermatozoa prior to insemination could improve the reproduction rate in horses ().
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".