LAPAROSCOPIC OVUM PICK-UP (LOPU): FROM ANIMAL PRODUCTION TO CONSERVATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laparoscopic Ovum Pick-Up (LOPU) is the most reliable and efficient technique for collecting high quality oocytes from live animals in certain species or age groups, allowing its use for In Vitro Embryo Production (IVEP) and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT).In order to maximize the number and quality of oocytes collected by donor, it is necessary to synchronize estrus and stimulate follicular growth using hormonal protocols that vary according to species.There are 2 big categories of applications for the LOPU-IVEP technology in production animals, those in which it acts as an alternative to MOET (competitive applications) and those in which it doesn't compete with MOET as it cannot be done in those categories (non competitive applications).In wild animals, LOPU can play an important role in conservation programs for endangered species when associated with effective IVEP and has been done in several species.It has commercial application in sheep, goats, cattle and buffaloes calves.Repeating LOPU procedures in the same female does not cause sequels with impact on the female's reproductive life, even when performed on prepubertal or wild animals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".