Spermatogenesis and cellular associations in the seminiferous epithelium of Guinea cock (<i>Numida meleagris</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study describes the steps of spermiogenesis and stages of seminiferous epithelial cycle in breeding guinea cocks. Sections embedded in epoxy resin were employed for the determination of the stages of seminiferous epithelial cycle in the guinea fowl. Acrosomic granules aided in identifying the initial steps of spermiogenesis, whereas nuclear morphological changes facilitated the identification of subsequent stages. Eleven steps of spermiogenesis and nine stages of seminiferous epithelium were recognized in the guinea fowl testis. Three spermatogonial types, namely, spermatogonial A, B and intermediate were identified in the guinea fowl seminiferous epithelium. Spermatogonial A and preleptotene spermatocytes had the largest (P < 0.05) nuclei diameters in the seminiferous epithelium, whereas round spermatids had the least. Within germ cells, no significant (P > 0.05) differences were found among birds in spermatogonial A and intermediate spermatogonial nuclei diameters. Spermatogonial B, preleptotene primary spermatocyte, type I spermatocyte (primary spermatocyte in prophase I), and round spermatid nuclei diameters were, however, bigger (P < 0.05) in some birds than others. The classification of the seminiferous epithelial cycle in the guinea fowl was similar to that described in other birds and mammals.
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) | 0.001 | 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".